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 41 of 92.
“I think I have tried to explain this a number of times. Let me make a further attempt. The law sets out maximum penalty – four years, five years – for such an offence. The law cannot, if you look at the legal provisions, go into much more detail than that. Sometimes, you can have illustrations, you can have some examples. And the Second Reading speech tries to flesh it out a bit more. But a Sentencing Advisory Panel looking at different types of cases can set out, flesh out a little bit more, in non-binding language in cases that fall into this sort of factual matrix involving offenders above a certain age, involving this type of offence. Generally, we think the range of sentences, our view is that it should be between this and this. That is what the Sentencing Advisory Panel can do. And as I indicated, more than half of the Sentencing Advisory Panel will comprise judges anyway. It is bringing together a combined wisdom to set out a framework for how cases can be dealt with and it is aid for the individual judges faced with individual cases and applying the law and the guidelines to the specific facts to see whether the facts come within, should it fall within this range or there are facts which take it out. As I said, on the reasoning of Ms Poa, a number of judiciaries around the world would not be considered independent.”
“I think Ms Poa understands what I am asking, but she does not want to answer. Why should it compromise the independence of theJudiciary? First of all, I said more than half the members would be from the Judiciary. Second, the purpose is guidelines for the future without referring to any specific case. Just like here, we are discussing what the laws ought to be. Do we compromise the independence of the Judiciary by doing so? Do we compromise the independence of the Judiciary when we set out in the law, what the punishments ought to be? Maximum, minimum, sometimes we say mandatory? Those decisions are made, that is a framework in which the laws are applied. The guidelines are guidelines which will flesh out a little bit more. And it is for the Courts and the judges in the individual cases to decide whether the guidelines need to be departed from or need to be applied. How do the giving of these guidelines, how do the guidelines that the Courts have internally, how does any of this compromise the independence of the Judiciary? On Ms Poa's reckoning, the judiciaries in Australia and UK are no longer independent. May I have a view, please?”
“I am having difficulty following the question. But perhaps can I ask Ms Poa, in principle, does she support the setting up of a Sentencing Advisory Panel? Then, we may be able to discuss further.”
“Open-minded, but an open mind is not an empty mind. It must also not absorb whatever nonsense that comes up. It must be able to assess what makes sense, what does not make sense, make an assessment, give guidelines that would carry authority and respect. Who can provide that? There are many who have viewpoints. They will all be welcome to give their views. By necessity, the panel will not be a very large panel and there will be limits on how many people can be there. There is, in principle, no disability imposed on people, but I do not think we should run after this with diversity as a primary goal. The primary goal must be a sentencing body that would carry respect. In terms of gender diversity, I do not think Mr Zhulkanain or Members need to worry. That is something that my Ministry will keep front and centre, and even if we did not, I think more than half the profession are women anyway. So, you will expect that to be reflected in the panel.”
“On Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's two questions, and as to whether the panel can be invited to give views, we will give consideration but the situation in Singapore is slightly different from Australia. Let me explain why. This is a relatively small place. The panel will also have judges. First off, it would look a little odd that judges appear before judges to give their views. So, the composition that we are thinking of will have judges, practitioners, lawyers certainly, appointed by the Law Minister. The way we are thinking of, MinLaw might appoint two. Who those two persons will be, we will decide on whether it needs to be from the Bar or from other places. Other stakeholders will be involved. A sentencing guideline issued by such a body, would be as I said, highly persuasive. It will be widely known across the legal and judicial circles. And I think that it helps us put up a framework beyond the legislation. Whether you need to go further, we can look at things as they evolve, but we also need to be careful how we structure it. Second, I know, its a buzzword, diversity. I am a believer that you appoint the appropriate persons to the right job. This requires expert viewpoints. The guidelines from the panel must carry weight. It must have gravitas for judges to take it seriously. That does not mean that you cannot take in the viewpoints of a variety of people interested in this matter. NGOs will have interest, others would have an interest, people who want specific laws or specific types of penalties to be changed will have an interest. And you must appoint a panel that is open to hearing all these viewpoints. But the panel must have the expertise to make an assessment based on the law and what makes sense, and put it across.”
“For younger offenders, the general approach – the dominant factor – ought to be rehabilitation. Because they do not have the full maturity of adults and they are still in their formative years. The chances of reforming are higher. But other sentencing principles, like deterrence and proportionate punishment, may take precedence over rehabilitation, even for younger offenders, where the offence is serious, the harm caused is severe, the offender in our assessment is hardened or recalcitrant, or the conditions that make rehabilitation options viable do not exist. Say, a young offender has committed rape. The Courts may impose imprisonment and caning instead of a rehabilitative sentence like probation or reformative training, because of the nature of the offence, its severity and the likelihood or the possibility that this may happen again and other people need to be protected. For adult offenders, I have explained, for sexual and hurt offences, rehabilitation would not be the dominant consideration unless there is a strong propensity to reform and specific factors strongly point to rehabilitation. But I have also said, "I am a person with bright prospects" or "I am an undergraduate who is going to do well in life" – those are not very relevant factors. I have been quite clear about that.”
“The media, I think they play a very important role, in helping the public get a fuller and better understanding of the process and what is the framework. But I think one point to which I do not really have a solution is that individual cases, partially reported, without the full facts, tend to invoke a lot of passion, excite a lot of passion, and then people form views. We have to be careful about the cases being trialed in the court of public opinion. Or there being decisions which are pushed upon by the public with not a full understanding either of the law or the facts. Because not the full facts are out in the media most of the time. We have to allow judges to carry on and do their jobs. But public opinion is important and for the Parliament to be aware of the public sense of right and wrong is also important because that allows us to calibrate and make sure our laws accurately reflect where the balance ought to lie. Now, we ought to decide that – in the best interests of the public. But public viewpoints and public opinions are relevant in coming to that assessment. Ms Nadia Ahman Samdin also asked about the balance between deterrence and rehabilitation in sentencing. Most of my speech – quite a lot of my speech – was targeted at dealing with that. Again, it is for the Parliament to decide, depending on the offence, what the balance ought to be. It should depend on age. That is why in my Ministerial Statement I spoke about adult offenders being treated more severely. You would treat a 15-year-old differently from a 25-year-old or a 23-year-old. So, we need to look those factors. We need to look at the degree of active consideration of what the person was going to do, the culpability, the seriousness of the offence.”
“Of course, in addition, there are Protection Orders available and Expedited Protection Orders available under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) and the Women's Charter, as appropriate. We are also exploring, we are talking to the Courts about the possibility of recording video-recorded interviews of victims and then, using those videos as evidence in court in lieu of examination-in-chief. And we think that that might help reduce the victim's trauma from having to recount again in court the ordeal the person went through. We are trying to reduce the number of times a person has got to talk about the ordeal that he or she went through; usually a "she". But when we speak about all of this, do not forget the presumption of innocence and the accused's right to a fair trial and have the allegations tested in court. So, never forget that. Second, Ms Nadia Ahman Samdin also asked about the role of media and members of the public. In order to have meaningful discourse, you need a better understanding. To raise the level of understanding, we are, for example, publishing the guide on sentencing that I spoke about in my Statement. We are also talking about the Sentencing Advisory Panel issuing guidelines. But, of course, I think we must be realistic. Not every member is going to check out the MHA website on guidelines and read them. I think a few days ago I recall Mr Pritam Singh saying that he did not realise that I had made nine speeches. I am realistic about how many people read my speeches and visit the MHA website. But we will put it out and we will try and get people to understand. Of course, lawyers will be better informed as well.”
“I thank Ms Nadia Ahman Samdin for those questions. Let me start off with one point that I think we should all be very clear about. We can express our views set out in the Parliament through legislation – tough laws – but let us not walk out of this Chamber with the belief that the laws alone or even the enforcement of them is going to prevent all offences. No society works on that basis. The one thing I have learned in 30 years in the law, in one way or another, is that the laws are there, the majority of the people do not need laws to keep them straight and a small minority who will be tempted, many of them will not be tempted as long as they know that the laws are tough and there will be enforcement. But there will always be, regardless of what steps you put in to prevent fraud, what steps you put in to prevent criminal action, there will always be a group that breaks the laws. Having the laws is important for the bulk of society but let us be clear – there will be people who will break them and we will have to deal with it. That is the starting point. Whether it is laws against sexual offences or laws against fraud or laws against speeding; any of which. With that, how do we take into account victims' interests and protect them? You have victim impact statements. They can be submitted to the Courts so that the Courts are very informed about the impact of the offence on the victim, and the emotional and physical trauma that has been suffered. I have talked about it earlier. In order to protect the identity of the alleged victim, gag orders can be made. I have given you in my Ministerial Statement a framework in such cases on how the victim could be protected from some types of cross examination, from having to face the accused, from having screens to protect them.”
“I thank Mr Murali Pillai for the questions. On the Sentencing Advisory Panel, the remit is being worked out. I think it makes sense for the remit to be covering beyond sexual and hurt offences, and that is the intention. Precisely which offences would be covered, I do not want to prejudge that at this point. Second, specific to the facts of the 22-year-old undergraduate, under the criminal trespass charge that was taken into consideration, this goes directly into what Ms Sylvia Lim had asked. It is really not for me to second-guess and say, on specific cases, why the Attorney General's Chambers did or did not do something. That is a matter of discretion. But let me recall or put across the facts as I remember them. I think Mr Murali Pillai will remember. It was a case where, yes, there was a break-in but the ex-girlfriend then spent some time talking to the young man. And, in fact, took him – if I recall correctly – to a part of the house. It may well be, if I were the prosecutor, I would look at it and I will say that that is not going to be an easy case, because, yes, there was initial trespass but was there subsequent consent? So, one has got to look at the facts carefully. There can be a variety of reasons why charges are taken into consideration. Why was there no appeal? As I said, it was dealt with in accordance with the law at that point in time. Today, we have enhanced the penalty. For example, this would have been treated like an intimate partner violence case, where the penalty would be higher. The Courts imposed a sentence that was in line with the precedents at that point in time and AGC's assessment was that it was not going to be easy to challenge. I cannot be dealing with every specific discretion that AGC exercises.”
“And that then has got to be the guidelines for AGC to apply in exercising their prosecutorial discretion. The discretion has got to have a framework to be applied; framework has got to be supplied by Parliament. And for the Courts, with their judicial independence to apply, the Courts also need a framework. So, that is the context to the Statement. Thank you, Sir.”
“Thank you. On the first question that AG, AGC or prosecution will generally object in general, in fact, as I have said in my speech, for some time now, that has been the position of prosecution in general when it comes to sexual and hurt offences. They object to community-based sentencing or rehab-based sentencing, and they focus on deterrence and sending the message. I am re-emphasising and reaffirming that approach and saying that AGC will be even clearer in that approach hereafter. On the second question whether this undermined prosecutorial discretion, absolutely not. I mean, as I have mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, you will have cases where individuals – intellectually-challenged, did not know what they were doing was right or wrong or on the margin – these are not matters that we can set out in broad terms here in Parliament, and AGC will have to decide, case by case, and the Courts will have to decide case by case. But what is important is that Parliament understands and affirms, and the Executive, my Ministry, puts before Parliament the Government's policy and this Ministerial Statement sets out the Government's policy for Singaporeans, which we put before Parliament that we will take a no-nonsense approach to sexual and hurt offences. Rehabilitation will not be the primary consideration. The primary considerations will be deterrence and prevention and sending the message clearly, and consistent with what I have articulated, as a fundamental tenet and value. So, it is for the Government to set out that policy. It is for Parliament to put that policy in law where it is not already in law. And I have said we will make amendments in three specific situations, and we set out what we believe should be the approach which is good for society as a whole.”
“Particularly, I was concerned about senior citizens who now are at homes, and elder abuse, and I felt that we ought to stiffen the law before it becomes prevalent.”
“I thank Mr de Souza. I think the current position, we were quite deliberate that it should cover vulnerable victims. And in my speech now, as well as when I moved the amendments, the way we saw our society, what is happening, you have children who are vulnerable, you have domestic workers who are vulnerable and, in a fast-ageing society, you have senior citizens who are vulnerable, who are not able to take care of themselves, and you have intellectually-challenged people who are vulnerable. So, we have sought to define people in vulnerable categories; and offences against them, the penalties are much more severe. So, we have already gone down that route and the definition is quite comprehensive in terms of starting with what we mean by "vulnerable". So, all those categories I have mentioned are considered vulnerable. We then added on another category that would not, in the usual sense, be considered vulnerable – girlfriends or people in an intimate partner relationship when they are subjected to violence. If you are in a marriage situation, the Women's Charter allows you to go and take an application, a Personal Protection Order (PPO). But if you are an unmarried partner, you cannot go and take a PPO under the Women's Charter because, by definition, it only applies to people who are married, spouses. So, we extended the protection to persons in an intimate partner relationship. So, if you abuse your girlfriend, now these enhanced penalties will apply to you, and your girlfriend can take out the appropriate orders under POHA, for example. So, we have covered vulnerable categories. But I will be happy to ask my Ministry to relook at it. But we were quite focused in the way our society was changing.”
“And that is, of course, without considering, if you are a professional, the professional bodies will have something to say. For doctors, the Medical Council will follow up. So, you will face both professional consequences and criminal consequences. So, I think we ought to be quite clear that being in a position of trust is a very material – in fact, central – consideration in enhancing penalties.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I mean he reeled off a list of cases where people have abused that position of trust to molest or otherwise hurt someone close to them. Let me make the general point first. We are a low-crime society. Societal relationships, man's behaviour with man, these things happen everywhere. I do not want people to go away thinking that, in some way, in Singapore, it is more extreme. In fact, it is much lower. It is much lower because, as I have said before – and I think Senior Minister Teo might have, too – in Singapore, a few things are quite certain. When you have done wrong, you are likely to be investigated. Second, the investigations do not usually take very long. Third, if you are guilty, you are likely to be found guilty and you are likely to face the penalties because we start off from that framework. Also, on the whole, we have a highly law-and-order-based society. People obey the laws. I think we have managed to keep the criminal behaviour to a much smaller context than many other countries do. So, we start from a position which would be of some envy to most well-ordered societies. With that, the specific question that Mr Yam has asked, these factors are already relevant, highly relevant, for sentencing. If you are in a position of trust, if you are a teacher, that is a very serious consideration that is taken into account in sentencing. So, there will be no question in the minds of people, if you are a teacher, if you are a doctor, you are in a position of fiduciary relationship where you have control or you have oversight over the other person and you take advantage, the Courts treat that very seriously, and we have reflected that approach quite clearly.”
“Of course, people who are not happy, there are other routes, as the Member knows as well; through a magistrate's route as well. If you want more details of how we work it, to the extent that it is possible to give it, because we do not want people gaming it either, I am happy to share the details.”
“Thank you. That question actually highlights one of the more involved discussions that MHA has been having, with me involved. Let me put it this way. Voluntarily causing hurt, as Mr Singh would know, it can cover a broad ambit. Let me give a couple of examples. You are in a supermarket. Someone goes past you and push you. Let us leave out the sexual part of it – just two men. He pushed you aggressively. That is at one level. You did not feel hurt, nothing, but he should not have pushed you. You go and file a Police report. On the other end of the scale, could be a more serious assault which does not result in grievous hurt – because then, it would be voluntarily causing grievous hurt – but nevertheless, leaves you in a state of shock. It is quite clear the second category — I mean, we talk about Singapore being a safe society. My position to the Police has been that those sorts of cases, you want to be able to walk in the streets, feeling safe. You need to know that if there is that kind of conduct, that will end up in court. But if you start taking every assault to court, I do not think we are doing justice as a society either. Because you will get into a detailed involved assessment of intent, cause. I think the intent of your question then and now, Mr Singh, is that the criminal law is not the best solution for these cases. It should be dealt with through other ways, without undermining the rule of law. We agree. There are some internal frameworks for the Police to try and assess that and deal with it. If the Police try to deal every single case of police report on voluntarily causing hurt, it would be an impossible situation. And I do not think we will be better off as a society either. So, there is a framework to try and deal with this.”
“Beyond these penalties, the criminal justice system also reflects the values of society. Such acts must be seen as penalising a gross violation of fundamental values in Singapore. The usual mitigating factors will have less force when viewed in this prism. The starting point should be the conduct should never have happened. No excuses. Offenders should expect to face the full force of the law. Society needs to play its part as well to unequivocally repudiate sexual and hurt offences as violations of fundamental values. Collectively, with right laws and policies, and more importantly, with the right societal mindset in place, we can move towards being a society that fully lives up to our values. [Applause.]”
“The first case, the one in April 2020, where the High Court overturned the initial sentence of probation and imposed imprisonment, our view is that that was appropriate and that would be the case now with the amendments. The second case, the 22-year-old university student who hurt his ex-girlfriend in May 2019. The sentence in the case was decided in accordance with the law at the time and rightly so. Had the acts been committed on or after 1 January 2020, he is likely to have been charged under the new Penal Code provisions, voluntarily causing hurt to a victim with whom he was in an intimate or close relationship. He would have been liable for up to twice the maximum penalty. For voluntarily causing hurt, twice the maximum penalty is up to six years’ jail, $10,000 fine, or both. Because that is the maximum penalty, he would then not be eligible for community-based sentences, which by law, are only generally available for offences punishable with a maximum imprisonment term of not more than three years. The third case is the 23-year-old university student who committed voyeurism. Before the Penal Code amendments came into force in 2020, such acts were usually prosecuted under the rubric of insulting the modesty of a woman, punishable with up to one year’s imprisonment, or fine or both. Now, with the introduction of a specific offence of voyeurism which carries double the penalty – two years’ jail, or fine – there is now also the possibility of caning. As I said, AGC will also, in general, object to probation or community-based sentences being imposed in cases involving voyeurism offences. Offenders who commit such offences should not expect to be treated leniently. Mr Speaker, I have set out our philosophy, a tough stance towards sexual and hurt offences.”
“It can enable proactive publication of guidelines to pre-empt or address areas of concern, and that can facilitate a more consultative process. And it will allow views of more stakeholders to be taken into consideration. MHA and MinLaw have discussed with various stakeholders, including AGC, the Judiciary. We will set up a Sentencing Advisory Panel. The key function of the Panel will be to issue non-binding sentencing guidelines. To illustrate, if the Panel decides to issue a sentencing guideline for a hurt-related offence, the Panel can set out the sentencing framework, sentencing bands, based on the twin factors of harm and culpability. The framework can include relevant aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in sentencing. The guidelines will be published and be accessible to the public. It will be persuasive, but of course, not binding on the Courts. The Courts decide each case on the facts before them. We envisage that in working out the guidelines, the Panel will consult other stakeholders, where appropriate. And that will provide greater clarity to the public about the likely sentence and the relevant factors to be considered in sentencing, as compared to the current position where the legislation only sets out the maximum penalties. It is expected to be an inter-agency Panel. It will comprise stakeholders from the criminal justice system, including Members of the Judiciary, AGC, MHA and SPF. We will give more details on the Panel later. Let me now, in the context of the points I have made, consider again the cases I mentioned at the start of the Statement.”
“It may, in certain circumstances, better serve the public interest to impose a rehabilitative sentence with appropriate conditions, to reduce the likelihood of future re-offending, rather than to impose an imprisonment term. Take another example, where the offender suffers from a treatable psychiatric condition that contributed to the commission of the offence, a Mandatory Treatment Order may be appropriate. The third step that we will take is to publish a guide on sentencing in Singapore. To better educate the public about the sentencing process, MHA and MinLaw have worked with AGC and the Law Society and we have prepared a guide on sentencing in Singapore. This guide explains sentencing process in our courts, addresses important questions of public interest like: (a) what are the objectives of sentencing? (b) what are the common types of sentences imposed by the Courts? (c) what factors does the Court take into account during sentencing? (d) how does the Court decide what sentence to impose? The guide will be published on the MHA, MinLaw and AGC websites. Therefore, if I may summarise this part, in respect of sexual and hurt offences, based on what I have said, it should be clear that an offender will not receive a lighter sentence simply because he has higher educational qualifications, or has better prospects in life. There is another important step that we are going to take. MHA and MinLaw have also been considering how we can achieve greater consistency in sentencing and how there can be greater public education about sentencing. We studied the experience in other jurisdictions: England and Wales, and Scotland. We noted that the formation of a Sentencing Body that promulgates sentencing guidelines can be useful.”
“Next, where sexual activity in the presence of a minor takes place, or sexual images are shown to a minor between the ages of 14 and 16 years; and if you compare that with exploitative sexual activity in the presence of a minor or showing a sexual image to a minor who is between the ages of 16 and 18 years. These two offences are similar in nature to offences involving sexual communication with minors. We will therefore correlate the penalties – increase the maximum sentence from one year to two years’ imprisonment. Second, unless there are exceptional facts, AGC will, as a general rule, object to rehabilitative sentences for adult offenders who commit certain sexual and hurt offences. Where adult offenders – I emphasise adult – commit sexual and hurt offences, the need for proportionate punishment and deterrence must take precedence over rehabilitation. This is a matter for the Government to decide. It is a matter of policy. I have discussed this with AGC and AGC agrees with our view. Therefore, AGC will generally object to rehabilitative sentences, such as probation and community-based sentences, where the offenders are adults who commit certain types of hurt or sexual offences. I should add that that is the general position they have taken anyway, but they are going to be much stricter about it. We will need to give due consideration to exceptional circumstances, which may justify deviation from this general position. We have to, in Parliament, and the Executive, and of course, AGC in court. For example, where the facts of the case are such that rehabilitation should be the dominant sentencing consideration. Take a situation, where a first-time adult offender with an intellectual disability touches a woman.”
“Relevant offender-specific mitigating factors should generally continue to be taken into account. These factors should be assessed on a case-by-case basis with due consideration given to the harm caused to the victim and the need for deterrence. With this in mind, I will set out three steps that we are going to take now: one, increase penalties for three specific sexual offences; two, AGC will generally object to rehabilitative sentences for adult offenders who commit certain sexual and hurt offences; and three, a guide on sentencing will be published. First, increase in penalties for three sexual offences. As Members know, I have been coming repeatedly to amend these laws and you can see that from Annex 1A. So, we have been constantly reviewing. We did a further review of our penalties for sexual and hurt offences in the Penal Code, including voyeurism, distribution of intimate images, outrage of modesty and voluntarily causing hurt. In our view, the maximum penalties are properly calibrated for most of these offences. We have set them out in Annex 1B. There are, however, three areas where we intend to increase the maximum punishments. First, outrage of modesty under section 354(1) of the Penal Code. From 2016 to 2020, on average, we had 1,190 cases of outrage of modesty reported each year, which is about 24% higher than the previous period of 2011 to 2015. We want egregious cases to be dealt with more severely. We will increase the maximum imprisonment term from two years, to three years.”
“Outrage of modesty is not merely an offence that a man commits because he is tempted by the way a lady dresses. Voyeurism is not merely a thoughtless act that a young student commits in a moment of folly. These and other similar offences, whether committed against a female or male victim, should be dealt with seriously. These actions must be seen as an affront of fundamental values. There can in general, be no excuses for these offences. Mitigation pleas based on the offender's educational qualifications or academic potential should not carry much weight. For such offences, principles of proportionate punishment and deterrence should generally take precedence over rehabilitation. This means, if you touch a woman inappropriately without her consent, if you upload intimate images of an ex-girlfriend or any other woman; if you video record a woman showering, you must face serious consequences in law. And you should not be able to come to Court and say you have a bright future you will go far and so on. You can go far, but first serve the sentence. [Applause.] If we make examples of some offenders, however bright their potential outlook in life, then the message of deterrence will likely be stronger. I am going to ask MOE to summarise these points and send to all students, boys and girls, so that everyone understands where we stand, and they must realise that a moment of folly can lead to very serious consequences. We will make sure our laws reflect this severity. That said, there may be exceptional circumstances. Let me give a couple of examples. An offender, for example, may have a very low IQ, that affected his judgement as to right and wrong; or a serious mental illness that had a causal link to the offending conduct.”
“We also specifically made criminal acts like voyeurism, dissemination of intimate images without consent – these have become more prevalent with technology – the conduct were offences previously, but not specifically identified as voyeurism offence or a dissemination of intimate images offence. Voyeurism, for example, previously would have been charged under insulting a person's modesty. Dissemination of intimate images, for example, would have been charged under distributing pornography. Maximum penalty for voluntarily causing hurt has been increased from two to three years imprisonment. We have also enhanced penalties under POHA for harassment of persons in an intimate relationship with the offender and for repeated breaches of Protection Orders. Both the penal code and POHA amendments took effect on 1 January 2020 and the amendments apply to offences committed on or after that date. In 2018, the CPC and the Evidence Act were amended. The accused and counsel were required to seek the Court's permission before questions could be asked about a victim's physical appearance, sexual behaviour, where these do not relate to the charge. We also prohibited the release of identity of victims before a complaint is made and the default position for trials is closed-door hearings when the victim testifies. We also allowed the use of physical screens to shield victims from seeing the accused when testifying in court. Earlier in 2012, the Evidence Act was amended to remove provisions based on outmoded assumptions about victims of sexual offences. When it comes to sentencing of adult offenders who commit sexual and hurt offences, our position is that the sentences must reflect that such acts are deeply offensive to our fundamental values.”
“If I may carry on while that is being distributed. In 2019, we amended the Penal Code and Protection from Harassment Act, or POHA. Under the amended provisions, those who commit sexual and hurt offences against vulnerable victims, face enhanced penalties. That would include: victims in intimate and close relationships with the offender; children under the age of 14; domestic workers; and physically or mentally disabled victims who are substantially unable to protect themselves from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. Offenders who commit offences against such vulnerable victims are now liable for up to twice the maximum prescribed punishment. For example, if you take the unfortunate case for the Myanmarese foreign domestic work Ms Piang – if those facts had taken place after 1 January 2020, then those found guilty could face much higher punishments. For example, giving another example, there was a case some years ago, husband and wife abused their foreign domestic helper. The husband had slapped, punched and kicked the victim, hit her with canes and bamboo sticks and pushed her against the cabinet. The wife had slapped and punched the victim. They were convicted of numerous offences including voluntarily causing hurt under the Penal Code. The husband was sentenced to 43 months' imprisonment. The wife was sentenced to two months imprisonment. If those assaults had taken place after 1 January 2020, their sentences are quite likely to have been higher because the penalties have been enhanced.”
“The Courts look at the laws, the range of sentences and decide each case on its on its facts, because sentencing in the end is fact-specific. So, when it comes to sentencing, what should our philosophy be? There are four principles that are often referred to. First, prevention – where an offender poses a threat to public safety, the sentence should prevent the offender from causing further harm. Two, deterrence – the sentence should deter the offender as well as others from similar behaviour in future. Three, rehabilitation – the sentence should, where and to the degree appropriate, seek to encourage the reformation of the offender. Four, proportionate punishment – the sentence should punish the offender according to his blameworthiness and seriousness of crime. I will now deal specifically with sexual and hurt offences. The Government takes a tough approach on sexual and hurt offences. We have made significant amendments over the years to enhance the protection for victims of sexual and hurt offences. I have set them out in the Annex. With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the clerk to distribute the Annex. Members may also access these materials through the SG Parl MP mobile app.”
“AGC appealed against probation. They did not agree that a sentence of probation was appropriate and the High Court agreed with the AGC and imposed two weeks imprisonment. The second case was in July 2020, a 22 year-old university student caused hurt to his ex-girlfriend. He had put his hands around her neck, choking her and pressed her eye as well. He was given a 12-day Short Detention Order (SDO), 80 hours of Community Service Order (CSO) and a five-month Day Reporting Order (DRO). The third case in July 2020, a 23-year-old undergraduate, used a handphone recorded a video clip of a female person in a bathroom. He was sentenced to a 14-day Short Detention Order and a 130-hour Community Service Order. AGC felt that the sentence was too light and they appealed, but the sentence was upheld in Court. These cases generated public discussion. There were also other cases where male university students took videos of females in bathrooms. There was a public sense that the sentences were not adequate, questions were asked – was there more leniency because of the educational qualifications of some of the offenders? In this speech, I will set out the Government's approach on sentencing adult offenders for hurt or sexual offences; and second, what should be the relevant factors in sentencing. When it comes to sentencing, the Government decides on the policy, puts it before Parliament and the philosophy, principles – what we want to see in the laws, what should be the range of sentences, what factors are relevant – those are matters of policy that the Executive works on and puts before Parliament and Parliament decides. The Courts then apply these laws. Thus, it is for the Government and Parliament to decide whether the punishments are adequate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on 8 March, the world will celebrate International Women's Day. Our discussion today on protection of women is timely. We have had some cases for the past few years relating to sexual and hurt offences which triggered much discussion on whether the sentences imposed were adequate. In September 2020, last year, we started off an important broad-based conversation on the position of women in Singapore, how we can better deal with the issues they face, not just crimes but the overall position of women. That review goes beyond the law, beyond the narrow context of sexual and hurt offences. This particular review here, which I am going to speak about, is on the context of sexual and hurt offences. Stiff and effective punishments are necessary, but they are only one part of the picture. The penalties may deter, but they are not going to remove the attitudes behind such conduct. As a society, we must look deeper. The broad-based review will look into how equality and respect for women can be better ingrained in our society and inculcated as a fundamental value from young; and to change mindsets, tackle underlying attitudes and behavioural patterns. We have had many discussions with various groups, many more discussions are planned and we are on track to issue the White Paper later this year. Today, for the purposes of my Statement, I will focus specifically on our approach on punishments that sexual and hurt offenders will face. Let me start by referencing three cases. First, in September 2019, we have the case of a 22-year-old university student who molested a woman on a MRT train. The Court gave him 21 months of probation. The probation report stated, and I quote, "good academic performance in school, highlighted his potential to excel in life".”
“I thank the Member for his unqualified support and I assume Workers' Party's position on the drug policies.”
“I did ask Mr Perera whether he agreed to the approach.”
“When they next assess, I will ask them to consider again whether there are ways in which some kind of measurement be done, either now or in the future because we are also talking about children growing up to be adults. So, you are talking about 20 years or so.”
“These include counselling, tuition assistance, parenting programmes and family bonding programmes, for example, run by The Salvation Army, Centre For Fathering and the Singapore Children's Society. Over the last two years, 282 inmates and their families attended these programmes. The Member has also asked about how do we evaluate the effectiveness of these programmes? I think the first question is, when I lay this out, I think Members will agree that this has to be done. I cannot believe that any Member here would say, we should not do any of these or should be cutting back on these. In terms of quantifying it, this is a very difficult to study, because there are too many factors that are outside of Prisons' control. Let me name some: how a child grows up, how a child averts the risk of a life in crime and drugs depends on family circumstances of the children involved; the social influences on the children; the willingness of the family to be fully involved and engaged in the programmes offered; also, how available the drugs are to that child, for children; the susceptibility of the family members including the children to the attraction of drugs. I can name many such factors. So, it is not an area you can easily quantify. You have to make an assessment and go ahead and do it; as we have been able to convince thousands of volunteers to do, together with Prison's officers and NGOs which see the benefit of doing these activities. While no specific quantification has been done, Prisons' professional assessment, based on the interactions, is that the programmes have helped the families which have a positive attitude towards receiving such help. Prisons generally look at how the effectiveness of its various programs can be assessed.”
“There are now more than 1,200 YRCP volunteers, who have reached out to more than 15,000 families. This is real hard work on the ground. Not glamourous, but thousands of people going, spending thousands of hours, helping. Prisons will also refer inmates and their family members who require assistance to the Family Resource Centres, (FRCs). FRCs operate from the Prison Link Centre in Changi. They render financial assistance, accommodation and social assistance. Where necessary FRCs will refer the families to the Family Service Centres (FSCs) for further casework support within the community. The FRCs have assisted close to 4,000 inmate families in the last two years. FSC social workers will try and review the family's risks and needs, and coordinate intervention and support across different agencies. For school-going children, FSCs will also link up with the schools to discuss their needs – the types and level of support needed by the children. Besides FSCs, we also have youth agencies, which provide support services for children and young persons who have behaviours which put them at risk, or who require constructive engagement. These include mentoring programmes, interest-based activities and career coaching. Then, there is the aspect of parent-child bonding. Prisons get involved in that. It provides inmates with family-centred programmes, like the Social Skills Training Programme and the Family Reintegration Programme, to equip them with communication skills, to engage their children and loved ones more effectively. In the past five years, Prisons has provided about 21,000 programme places to inmates for this purpose. Prisons also works with various other community partners on programmes and services, aimed at addressing the impact of the parents being in jail.”
“The court heard that his mother, who had thrown the hot water on him, told the IMH psychiatrist that she had abused meth for years and that she was probably suffering from withdrawal symptoms in the days before the boy's death, because she was unable to buy drugs from her usual supplier. In such cases I asked Members, what could have been done to save the child, which is part of the question the Member is asking. What we have done is to save the lives of thousands of such children with our focus on preventing widespread use of drugs through our very tough drug policies; probably one of the only country, if not, one of the few countries in the world that have dealt with this problem effectively. That helps prevent such cases from happening in the first place. We could identify the problem accurately if we want to find the right solutions. I have tried to explain how we try and make sure we reduce, minimise the risks of the situation that the Member has been referring to, from even arising in the first place. But despite all our efforts, and despite our tough laws and stance, there will be persons who will continue to abuse drugs and place their families and children at risk. In those cases, how do we help the children? The Government works closely with the community to help them. Newly admitted offenders are encouraged to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP). Under the YRCP, volunteers reach out to the families of inmates through home visits and link them up with various social support and community programmes. They also identify vulnerable children of inmates who may require support in their education or who may require counselling and refer them to relevant community programmes.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. First, we need to be clear on what are the primary causes of the drug problem which lead to children being affected. The Member's question focuses on measures to engage the children of drug-abusing parents, to prevent them from becoming drug offenders themselves. Looking at this narrowly, from that perspective, will not give an accurate picture. The primary issue is the trafficking and pushing of drugs in society. If we do not deal with those issues upstream, before the harm is caused, then there will be serious consequences to the lives of people and loss of children. So, we have to focus on deterring and disrupting the supply of drugs. If we do not do that properly, the children will suffer neglect at best from their families and many will face the risk of getting into a life of crime and drugs. Downstream efforts to help the children, will really be like fighting against the tide in such situations. We are very concerned about the children and the other people affected by drugs. That is why we take a tough approach on drugs. I will ask the Member if he agrees with the tough approach we have taken on drugs, the approach to severely punish the traffickers and suppliers responsible for this problem, if we are concerned about children, then I assume the Member will agree with us. Let me give an example – a five-year-old boy, I do not want to name him – died after being scalded with hot water in 2016. Every year I can name you a case of such a child. Five years old, four years old, parents affected by drugs.”
“These include having strong social support to ensure that the child remains well-taken care of emotionally, physically and mentally, and keeping the child engaged and occupied with pro-social activities. The findings of the study affirmed much of SPS's ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of offending on an offender's family. SPS facilitates the prompt identification and referral of the needs of offenders' families, including their children, to resources in the community. For instance, under the Yellow Ribbon Community Project, grassroots volunteers visit families whose loved ones are incarcerated, to assess their needs and concerns, for subsequent intervention. The Family Resource Centres work with SPS to address problems faced by inmates and their family, such as financial, accommodation or familial problems. The Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders (CARE) Network, of which SPS, other government agencies and social services agencies are members, delivers programmes and services aimed at addressing the impact of parental incarceration, such as counselling, tuition assistance, parenting programmes, and family bonding programmes.”
“The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) do not collect data on the number of drug users whose parents were themselves drug users. However, in 2017, SPS conducted a study on how parental drug abuse impacts the next generation. The study investigated the prevalence of offending amongst children (aged 12 years old and above) with drug-abusing parents, based on a 10-year cohort of drug admissions into prison between 2008 and 2017. The study found that about one in five (21.6%) drug-abusing parents had at least one child who had committed offences (i.e. incarcerated in prison, sent to a juvenile home or placed under probation). In the study, children with drug-abusing parents reported weakened attachment to their parents due to parent-child separation when one or both parents were incarcerated, and they often felt lonely and neglected. As a result of their parents' drug abuse, the children also reported being exposed to drug utensils and drugs at home. This increased their tolerance towards drug abuse and the likelihood of them abusing drugs subsequently. The study also revealed several factors that increase the risk of child offending. Children who have offended were found to have engaged in and maintained their offending behaviour as a result of inadequate supervision and control by their parents or caregiver. Further, growing up in a household with drug abuse or having anti-social influences in their immediate circle of friends increased the risk of the children engaging in offending behaviour. The children may also follow in the footsteps of their drug-abusing parents due to a desire to connect with them. The study identified possible protective factors that could mitigate the impact of parental drug abuse and incarceration on the child.”
“The Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) includes Police officers and psychologists who are trained in negotiation tactics, including how to handle cases involving barricaded subjects or those who attempt to commit suicide. There are no social workers in the CNU. When attending to a case involving attempted suicide, the immediate objective of responders is to ensure the safety of the person in distress and others around him or her. After the Police have ensured the safety of the various parties, other relevant personnel may then be brought in to attend to the suicidal person and to provide the necessary support. This may include social workers.”
“Police completed a review of their training programme in February 2021 and assessed that the elements of psychological first-aid training in the programme are adequate for now. For instance, the training programme for frontline police officers, such as the Ground Response Forces, covers suicide intervention skills such as empathising with emotionally distressed individuals in order to be able to assist them appropriately.”
“The average number of applications received each year from 2015 to 2020 for the renewal of a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) which is not sponsored by a local spouse, was about 23,500. Of this, 46% were from foreign parents and 37% were from foreign children, of Singaporeans or permanent residents (PRs). The remaining 17% were from LTVP holders with other types of relationship to their sponsor, such as foreign family members of Student’s Pass holders, foreign former spouses (of Singaporeans or PRs) who are widowed or divorced, and foreign still-married spouses who are undergoing divorce proceedings. In the same time period, nearly all LTVP renewal applications from foreign parents and foreign children of Singaporeans or PRs were approved. For applications from LTVP holders with other types of relationship to their sponsor, about 98% were approved. A small minority of applications were rejected, mostly due to (i) the applicant not having local family roots, (ii) the sponsor or applicant having adverse records, or (iii) because the sponsor was not able to demonstrate the ability to financially support himself or herself and the applicant. While the general rule is that foreign spouses should renew their LTVP under the sponsorship of their local spouse, those who are unable to do so can seek sponsorship from other Singaporeans or PRs. ICA will consider if there are valid reasons for the foreign spouse to stay in Singapore, such as whether the foreign spouse has custody of Singaporean children or is undergoing divorce proceedings in Singapore.”
“An inter-agency review committee is looking at ways to strengthen the Community Dispute Management Framework, which seeks to promote neighbourliness to minimise disputes, encourage amicable resolution of disputes via mediation, and provide accessible legal recourse for cases which may be intransigent. The review will look at improving the handling and referral protocols among frontline agencies, encouraging greater use of community mediation to resolve neighbour disputes, and making the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) more effective as a measure of last resort. If necessary, we will amend the Community Disputes Resolution Act to implement the recommendations.”
“The evidence is that primary reasons for accidents have been other factors, including negligence, recklessness, and driving while under the influence of intoxicants. In general, our roads have become safer over the last 10 years, with road traffic fatalities decreasing from 195 in 2011, to 118 in 2019, and 85 in 2020. MHA will continue to study how we can make our roads even safer.”
“The Rules provide for different levels of experience requirements, for some categories of vehicles. For example, new motorcyclists are only qualified to drive a Class 2B motorcycle with an engine capacity or power of up to 200 cubic centimetres (cc) or 15 kilowatts (kW). Individuals who wish to ride a Class 2A motorcycle, which has an engine capacity or power that exceeds 200 cc or 15 kW, but does not exceed 400 cc or 25 kW, can only apply for a Class 2A driving licence after they have held a Class 2B driving licence for at least one year. Similarly, individuals who wish to ride a Class 2 motorcycle, which has an engine capacity or power exceeding 400 cc or 25 kW, can only apply for a Class 2 driving licence after they have held a Class 2A driving licence for at least one year. Individuals can only apply for a Class 4 or 4A driving licence, which allows them to drive heavy vehicles such as big lorries and omnibuses, if they possess a valid Class 3 or 3C driving licence, which allows them to drive vehicles such as cars. Similarly, individuals can only apply for a Class 5 driving licence which allows them to drive heavy vehicles such as cranes, if they possess a valid Class 4 driving licence. The question is whether we need to put in similar rules within Class 3 licences. Class 3 licence holders are allowed to drive vehicles categorised as Class 3 vehicles, regardless of engine capacity or power. Our assessment has been that there is no need to differentiate, within Class 3. There is no evidence that new drivers will not be able to handle vehicles classified as Class 3 or that engine capacity has been a key reason for accidents.”
“SCDF, HDB and PA have been working together under the scheme to offer free installation of home fire alarm devices, or HFADs, for about 60,000 public rental flats. Since the launch of the programme in June 2018, SCDF and HDB have installed HFADs in around 43,000 flats. HDB targets to complete the installation works by this year. The agencies have not encountered any major issues, except that some residents declined the free installation, citing concerns with allowing contractors into their homes, and the possibility of false alarms.”
“That is why the vast majority of our public actually welcome these cameras. Thank you, Mdm Chairman.”
“Thank you, Mdm Chairman. On the first two points, I am glad that Mr Singh and we see eye-to-eye and he agrees with us. On the third point, I did not say 90,000 more. I said 90,000 cameras are already installed and there are going to be many more, and how many more depends on the kindness of MOF. The faster the better. The reason is this – and I take entirely the point about making sure that the information that is obtained, is used properly. For example, ICA has a lot of information – identity card, registration, travel – and we need to make sure that that information is used properly and not given to unauthorised persons. Cameras. I think this issue of privacy, sometimes the way one has got to analyse is – if individual A says something to individual B in his home, that is private. It is no one's business to know what you have said to your wife to, or to your son, or to your friend at your home. But sometimes, there is a confusion. If supposing the Police are investigating a crime, they are entitled to come to your house and ask what you have said, if it is relevant for the investigations. And you are duty-bound to say it and you cannot say "my right of privacy". And whoever you spoke with also will have to disclose, subject to, you know, arguments about privilege against self-incrimination and so on. So, if you did something in a public place, the Police are entitled to go in and investigate you and ask you what you did. If there is reason to believe a crime was committed, they are entitled to investigate and ask everybody else what they saw and then bring that evidence to Court, if necessary. The cameras, to some extent, either short circuits or supplements that approach, and that is the way to approach these sensors.”
“SCDF, too, will need more ambulances and more officers to attend to the growing number of medical emergencies, due to our ageing population. Police will need to expand the deployment of In-Situ Reaction Teams (IRTs) to patrol high footfall locations in Singapore to swiftly respond to armed terrorist attacks. We also need to increase the number of Police investigators. I have mentioned that previously. The number of investigation files handled by Land Divisions increased by 36% between 2015 and 2019. Cases have also become more complex. Crimes are increasingly tech-enabled. Perpetrators, often anonymous, may often be based overseas. It requires much more effort to track and identify them. Mr Murali Pillai asked how we are supporting the well-being of our Investigation Officers. Apart from increasing the number of investigators to manage the workload, Police are currently undertaking an internal review of their systems, processes and structures to see how better we can support our investigators.”
“Those who require more assistance can approach ICA officers at the ICA Building. ICA is Building a new Integrated Services Centre next to the existing ICA Building to provide counter services. Members of the public will be served at a single counter for all services. We will also try and make it a more seamless customer experience. Construction works for the Integrated Services Centre has commenced and is targeted for completion by 2023. Mr Murali Pillai asked about our plans to upgrade the skills of our officers. I will give some examples. The Home Team Academy has been using the Home Team Simulation System to train our officers in managing large-scale security incidents and joint operations. It requires fewer resources to carry out than a physical training exercise. The Home Team Academy will enhance the system with new technologies like artificial intelligence and expand the usage by officers. SCDF’s re-development of the Civil Defence Academy will include a Digital Learning Lab and it will provide Virtual Reality training for SCDF officers, such as extricating people from a car wreckage. The approach is always to try and upgrade the skills and make the training more realistic. What about our manpower needs? HTX will need to hire a few hundred scientists and engineers over the next few years to build a critical mass of experts in areas like digital and crime scene forensics, robotics and automation. There are also other new developments that continue to drive up demand for the Home Team’s manpower. For example, while ICA uses technology, it still needs manpower to run operations at future checkpoints – Tuas Mega Port and the RTS Link.”