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 43 of 92.
“Police received 11,269 permit applications for public assemblies outside the Speakers' Corner since the Public Order Act was introduced in 2009, and approved 8,545. Police do not tabulate the reasons for approving/ rejecting the applications. It will require a review of each of the applications, to now tabulate the reasons for approving/rejecting. Applications may be rejected for a number of reasons, for example, events being cancelled or postponed by the organisers. In addition, as set out under Section 7(2) of the Public Order Act, they may reject an application if the Commissioner of Police has reasonable grounds for apprehending that the proposed event may, among other reasons: (a) Occasion public disorder or damage to public or private property; (b) Create a public nuisance; (c) Place the safety of any person in jeopardy; (d) Cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different groups in Singapore; (e) Glorify or instigate acts of terrorism; (f) Be held at a prohibited area; or (g) Be directed toward a political end and organised by foreign entities. The Police do not track how many one-person assemblies or processions have been approved or rejected. As regards sub-paragraph (e) of the question, the approach taken is as follows: Public assemblies/processions in Speakers' Corner, do not require a Police permit. Outside of Speakers' Corner, the question is whether any assembly, procession, may potentially breach one of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Public Order Act. These provisions are capable of being breached by one person, and they are capable of being breached by more than one person. It will depend on the conduct of the person(s) involved.”
“Ms Raeesah Khan and Ms He Ting Ru asked about statistics related to sexual assault cases. From 2017 to 2019, there were 6,988 reports of sexual assault, including rape, sexual assault by penetration, outrage of modesty, and sexual offences involving children and vulnerable victims. Of these cases, 1,368 were prosecuted, resulting in 931 convictions till date. Of these 6,988 cases, 109 were between teacher and student, with "teacher" including private tutor, coach, and related roles. 619 were between colleagues, including supervisor and subordinate. 47 were between professional and client. 599 were between relatives, including non-biological relatives. 2,243 were between friends, 2,957 were between strangers, and 414 were between persons of other types of relationship, such as neighbours. Of these cases, 2,798 victims were below 16 years of age, 1,000 victims were between 16 and 20 years old, and 3,685 victims were aged 21 years and older. The number of victims does not tally with the number of cases as a case could involve more than one victim, or a victim could be involved in more than one case. 390 victims were employed as foreign domestic workers. Ms Khan also asked for some aspects of the profile of sexual assault offenders from 2000 to 2020. We have data from 2005 to 2019. During this period, 4,606 offenders were convicted for sexual assault offences. Of these, 1,364 were previously convicted for sexual assault offences and another 1,078 were previously convicted for other offences. We do not track the use of alcohol, drugs, or the prevalence and diagnosis of psychiatric conditions, in relation to sexual assault offenders.”
“And in trial or use for trial purposes, even if not produced in Court.”
“If the data is of no particular use, yes, it will be deleted. Otherwise, it will have to be produced in Court.”
“I thank the Member. I think Mr Singh will know under section 20 of the CPC, the Police are authorised to seek any information within the possession of a person. There are various provisions. As long as the seeking of such information is not excluded by some other written law. There are some provisions and some written laws which circumscribe the exercise of Police powers. Subject to that, the CPC gives the power to the Police and when such a power is given, the Police are obviously under a duty as well. To give you an example. Let us say there is a murder and the victim, the victim's family and information is available on the TraceTogether token. If Police chose not to seek that information, you can imagine how the victim's family and indeed the rest of Singapore might react to that situation. You could even argue that there can be a judicial review application in such a situation. However, given that this TraceTogether token is necessary for dealing with the pandemic and it is of national importance and its purposes are to help us deal with the pandemic, the Police approach has been and will be that it is pretty much restricted to very serious offences. And while that requirement is not in the legislation, it will be carefully considered within the Police and discretion will be exercised in seeking this information.”
“As previously indicated, the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs are conducting a review of, among others, the penalties for sexual offences. The outcome of this review will be announced in due course.”
“In all sexual assault cases, the Prosecution will make sentencing submissions on the harm caused to the victim. These submissions will take into account all the relevant evidence, such as the accounts of the victim and other witnesses, as well as medical and psychological reports. In some cases, the Prosecution will additionally tender a victim impact statement (“VIS”) if the Prosecution thinks that this would be of assistance to the Court. Based on available data: (a) From 2017 to 2019, a VIS was tendered in 28 State Court cases involving one or more sexual offences. (b) From 2015 to 2019, a VIS was tendered in 23 High Court cases involving one or more sexual offences. Typically, the impact of the crime on the victim is evident from the evidence put before the Court and the victim's testimony at trial. The number of cases where a VIS was tendered is therefore not a good indicator of the number of cases where the Courts were aware of the harm suffered by the victims. The harm suffered by victims is an important factor in sentencing for sexual offences. The Courts have stressed that every act of rape invariably inflicts immeasurable harm on a victim, and seriously violates the victim's dignity. In addition, where there are especially serious physical or mental consequences resulting from the rape, such as a psychiatric disorder, or deliberate infliction of special trauma, such as repeated rape during one attack or further degradation of the victim such as forced oral sex, these are taken into consideration as aggravating factors. The Courts have also issued several sentencing frameworks for sexual offences which give significant weight to the harm caused to the victim: the greater the harm caused, the harsher the sentence ought to be.”
“A Coroner who decides not to hold a CI under Section 25(2) shall report the facts to the Public Prosecutor with the Coroner's reasons for not holding a CI. Where the Coroner does not hold a CI, the Coroner will still issue detailed written findings to explain the cause of death and the manner by which the person came by his or her death. The Public Prosecutor may require the Coroner to hold a CI, if the Public Prosecutor is satisfied that a CI is necessary or desirable. In 2019 and 2020 (as at 24 December 2020), there were no cases where the Public Prosecutor required the Coroner to hold a CI, after the Coroner had decided not to hold a CI under Section 25(2).”
“In 2019 and 2020 (as at 24 December 2020), there were 1,961 investigations into unnatural deaths which were reported to the Coroner. Out of these 1,961 investigations, a Coroner's Inquiry (“CI”) was not held for 1,413 (or 72%) investigations. Section 25(1) of the Coroners Act sets out the types of cases where the Coroner must hold a CI. In other types of cases, Section 25(2) allows the Coroner to decide not to hold a CI, if the Coroner is satisfied that (a) the death was due to natural causes and it is unnecessary to do so, or (b) in the circumstances it is not necessary in the public interest to do so. Section 25(3) states that in deciding whether to hold a CI, the Coroner may have regard to the following matters: (a) in the case of a death that appears to have been unnatural or violent, whether or not it appears to have been due to the action or inaction of any other person; (b) the extent to which the drawing of attention to the circumstances of the death may be likely to reduce the chances of the occurrence of other deaths in similar circumstances; (c) the desire of any member of the immediate family of the deceased that a CI should be conducted; (d) whether or not the death occurred outside Singapore or was caused by matters arising outside Singapore; (e) whether or not an inquiry or investigation into the death has been or will be conducted by a coroner or a corresponding authority of a foreign country; and (f) any other matter the Coroner thinks fit. An example of a matter which may be taken into account by the Coroner under Section 25(3)(f) would be the desire of the family members of the deceased for no CI to be conducted.”
“Applications for maintenance orders in the Family Justice Courts (“FJC”) can broadly be categorised into three groups: (a) applications for fresh maintenance orders, made for the first time, where no other maintenance order exists; (b) applications to vary or discharge existing maintenance orders; and (c) applications to enforce existing maintenance orders. The applications can be made: (a) by women or incapacitated men for themselves; or (b) for the maintenance of a child. The number of applications for fresh maintenance orders in the last five years is shown in Table 1, with a breakdown according to the marital status of the applicant at the point of application. For cases involving maintenance of a child, the applicant need not be the spouse / former spouse, but can be the child’s guardian or the adult sibling. Hence, the marital status reflected is not necessarily indicative of the marriage in question. The number of applications for fresh maintenance orders has declined over the last five years. Ms Tan also asked for the demographic breakdown by spousal income of married and divorced applicants. As applications for maintenance orders may be made by a range of persons – spouse, former spouse and child’s guardian, it would be more accurate to provide the income of the respondent. Data on the respondents' income, based on non-mandatory fields completed by applicants when the application is made, is only available from 2017. The statistics on the applications for fresh maintenance orders, by applicants who were married and who were divorced, broken down by the respondents' income, are in Table 2. There is no discernible trend from the data.”
“Ms Raeesah Khan had asked for information related to sexual assault cases and forensic medical examinations. Forensic medical examinations of victims are required in cases of rape and sexual assault by penetration - serious sexual crimes. Such examinations are generally conducted for victims whose cases are reported within 72 hours of the assault. Scientifically, the 72-hour time frame is the most effective window to recover forensic evidence, as recommended by the World Health Organisation. For cases beyond 72 hours, Police may order the forensic medical examinations to be conducted if there is reason to believe that evidence can still be recovered through the examination. From 2017 to 2019, there were 70 such examinations at the OneSAFE Centre. Victims of serious sexual crimes have also been examined at hospitals. Sometimes, examinations might not be conducted because of the facts and circumstances, for example, if the offence is dated and forensic evidence cannot be recovered. The victim's consent is required before conducting a forensic medical examination because such examinations are highly intrusive. As victims under 21 years old are considered minors under common law, in such cases, Police and the public healthcare institutions will seek consent from both the victim and the victim’s parent or guardian. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been reviewing the minimum age of consent to these examinations, among other issues.”
“Under the BP, volunteers provide one-on-one support and guidance to youth offenders via letter writing and face-to-face visits. Such support continues even after their release. In addition, SPS regularly invites ex-offenders who have successfully reformed to share their stories and experiences with youth offenders, to inspire hope and change amongst them. SPS also actively involves the families of youth offenders in their reintegration journey. When in prison, all youth offenders sentenced to Reformative Training (RT) are required to undergo the Family Programme. Non-RT youth offenders will attend the Family Programme if the duration of their incarceration allows. Through the programme, knowledge and skills such as conflict resolution, emotion regulation and self-control techniques are imparted to the offenders and their families. Opportunities are provided for them to maintain ties and build stronger bonds with one another. When out in the community, RT inmates are assigned a Reintegration Officer and a Case Manager, to facilitate their transition from incare to a community setting. The Reintegration Officer is a Prison Officer and the Case Manager is from a Social Service Agency. They work hand in hand with the RT youth offenders, as well as the parents, to develop the youth offenders' reintegration plan and review their rehabilitation progress. SPS will continue to work with community partners to expand support networks, and strengthen collaborations with schools and employers to provide even more opportunities for youth offenders in their reintegration journey.”
“The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) recognises the importance of positive networks in supporting the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth offenders. From the moment the youth offenders are admitted to prison, they are engaged in various programmes that prepare them for their eventual release. Examples include the National Youth Achievement Award (NYAA) programme, Throughcare Volunteer Framework (TVF) and Befriending Programme (BP). Volunteers and staff from various community partners befriend and work with the youth offenders under these programmes. After the youth offenders are released, these volunteers and community partners continue to engage them, to ensure that they continue to have access to positive social and support networks. The NYAA programme was introduced to youth offenders in prison in 2000. It encourages young people to develop self-reliance, perseverance and a sense of responsibility to themselves and to society. The 2020 NYAA programme involved volunteers from the Singapore Adventurers' Club, Tzu Chi Foundation, Singapore Kindness Movement and Sports Singapore. Participants build friendships with the volunteers during their incarceration, and continue to have access to these positive social networks after release. SPS introduced the TVF in 2019. Under the TVF, SPS brings in various community partners and volunteers to support offenders, including youth offenders. Offenders are matched with religious or secular volunteers, who will support them throughout their incarceration and also after they are released. The TVF currently has seven Social Service Agencies (SSAs) on board, with an estimated 700 volunteers. Youth offenders who are assessed to require social support can also be emplaced on the BP.”
“Cases that the IRP reviews include those which have resulted in death or serious injury, and those which obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. IRP members include retired judges, former senior Home Team officers, and other persons of standing in society. An IRP Case Committee will convene to look into each case referred to the IRP. Each Committee comprises at least three persons selected from the IRP, with not more than one former Home Team officer. It will provide its opinion to the Minister for Home Affairs on whether the investigation was conducted thoroughly and fairly, and whether they agree with the investigation outcome. The IRP has been convened for Police and CNB cases, but so far, not for SPS cases. SPS takes every complaint very seriously. It does not condone any mistreatment of inmates and takes firm and strict disciplinary action against any officer found to have done so.”
“If SPS officers are found to have acted unprofessionally, disciplinary action will be taken, including dismissal. If investigations indicate a potential criminal offence being committed, the case will be referred to the Police, or another appropriate law enforcement agency such as the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau if graft is suspected. Between 2016 and 2020, SPS received an average of 12 complaints per year on mistreatment of inmates, such as unauthorised use of force, threat or verbal abuse. This included three cases of repeated complaints. Of all the complaints on mistreatment of inmates received in the last five years, two were eventually found to be substantiated, involving the unauthorised use of force on inmates by SPS officers. In the first case, an officer had grabbed the triceps of three inmates and stepped on their toes on a few occasions. The matter came to light when one of the inmates reported the matter to another SPS officer and the case was investigated. All three inmates were sent for a medical examination and one was found to have sustained two small bruises on his arm. No injuries were found on the other two inmates. A fine was imposed on the offending officer. In the second case, an officer was found to have slapped an inmate once when the inmate put up a struggle against him after being defiant and refusing to comply with repeated instructions. The officer himself reported the incident to his supervisor, admitting to the act. No injuries were found on the inmate during his medical examination. A fine was similarly imposed on the officer. MHA also has an Independent Review Panel, IRP, to look into serious cases of misconduct by all Home Team officers; this is not restricted to SPS.”
“There are a number of ways by which inmates can raise their complaints. They can raise their complaints to the superintendent of the institution or any SPS officer. They can do so through their families, friends, Members of Parliament or lawyers, who can in turn raise the matter to SPS or MHA HQ. Inmates may also lodge complaints and share their concerns directly with the Board of Visiting Justices and the Board of Visitors. These Board members conduct unannounced inspections of prison institutions. They are prominent members of society who have made significant contributions in their profession, the public service, social services or in the community. After each inspection, the Board members will note down the feedback received during the visit, as well as any other comments and recommendations that they may have. The report is sent to the superintendent of the inspected institution to follow up. The superintendent is required to look into every issue, and provide a written reply to the Board members. The reports from the Board members and the superintendents’ findings are sent to SPS’s senior management and MHA HQ for review. Any complaint of mistreatment of an inmate by a prison officer is treated especially seriously and is investigated by a team of provost officers and assessed by SPS’s senior management. The provost officers will take statements from the complainant, witnesses, as well as the accused party, and review all available evidence, for instance, CCTV footage. Thereafter, they will submit their findings to SPS’s senior management. Board members can also review SPS’s investigation findings, including the evidence, and interview inmates as part of addressing their complaints.”
“For instance, Mr Aaron Aziz, a popular television celebrity, has been very active as an influencer for the Dadah Itu Haram campaign, helping to spread anti-drug messages both in person, and on his social media platforms. CNB and NCADA engage community partners and volunteers through the United Against Drugs Coalition and Anti-Drug Abuse Advocacy Network, or A3 Network.2 So far, CNB has recruited 207 youth advocates under the A3 Network. We will continue to strengthen our PDE efforts.”
“In January 2019, CNB launched an exhibition incorporating augmented reality for secondary school students, to give them a more immersive understanding on the harms of drugs. The exhibition has reached out to more than 3,000 students so far and has received good feedback. CNB has also worked with MOE to offer the After-School Engagement, or ASE programme, as part of the MOE GEAR-UP programme to support students from disadvantaged families.1 The ASE programme provides a platform for students to learn about drug abuse and its consequences, through activities such as sharing by former drug abusers. CNB also works with the Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force to engage full-time national servicemen. In April 2020, CNB commissioned a "Mythbusters" series that debunks misconceptions about different drugs. Through the use of explainer video clips, infographics and quizzes on CNB’s Facebook and Instagram pages, the series addresses myths about drugs from an evidence-based, science-driven angle. CNB has also been working closely with NCADA. NCADA launched a media campaign in March 2020, built around Singapore’s first interactive film titled "HIGH", directed by local filmmaker Royston Tan. The film garnered 165,000 unique views on its microsite by the end of the campaign in July 2020. The film was screened at various Institutes of Higher Learning in January 2020, reaching approximately 5,000 students. Each film preview was followed by a Safe Zone Discussion, an interactive platform for students to share their thoughts on the film, on drug abuse and anti-drug advocacy. CNB engages influencers and the community to reinforce and spread the anti-drug message.”
“Results from public surveys show that the majority of youths are aware of the harms of drugs and support taking a tough stance against drugs, although to a lesser degree than the rest of the population. A 2018 public perception survey found that among youth respondents aged 13 to 30 years old, 96% felt that drug-taking should remain illegal in Singapore. This was slightly lower than the 98% of older respondents above the age of 30. 94% of youths agreed that drug-taking has a negative impact on society, compared to 98% for older respondents. 90% and 76% of youths agreed that imprisonment and caning are appropriate punishments for drug traffickers respectively. This compares with 94% and 81% for older respondents. In another survey conducted in 2019 by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA), about 83% of youths disagreed that it was alright to try drugs as long as one does not get addicted, as compared to 87% of those above the age of 30. Youths’ support for Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance towards drugs was 79%, compared to 84% for those above the age of 30. While we are heartened that the majority of the youths surveyed view drugs negatively, there are indications that more youths are adopting more liberal views. They are more exposed through the internet and social media platforms, to the liberal drug views and policies of other jurisdictions, such as harm reduction strategies, decriminalisation of drug abuse, and even the legalisation of cannabis. Over the years, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) has put in place many preventive drug education, or PDE, programmes to reach out to youths. Schools have been a key touchpoint. CNB officers have been giving talks about drugs at school assemblies.”
“To increase awareness of scams, the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) launched a new anti-scam public education campaign, ‘Spot the Signs. Stop the Crimes.’, in August 2020. The campaign focuses on sharing real-life scam examples to educate the public on how to spot the tell-tale signs of various scams. Police also work with Residents’ Committees and grassroots volunteers to spread scam alerts to residents, including senior citizens, via WhatsApp and at community events like block parties, roadshows, festive events and Community Safety & Security Programmes. The NCPC spreads awareness of online scams through their bi-weekly WhatsApp broadcasts and social media platforms. Police and NCPC will continue to monitor the scam situation closely.”
“We are aware of two types of scam involving QR codes. The first type involves deceptive QR codes to divert victims to malicious websites for the phishing of personal data or for fraudulent payments. For example, in China, scammers print deceptive QR codes on stickers and paste them over genuine QR codes on bikeshare bicycles. Users who scan these deceptive QR codes will be deceived into making payment to the scammers instead of the bikeshare operators. We are also aware of scammers deploying deceptive QR codes on spoofed websites to con users, who are expecting to download a legitimate app, into installing malware on their device instead. While we have seen reports of such scams in other jurisdictions, there have been no cases reported in Singapore so far. The second type are scams where QR codes are merely the medium through which the scam is perpetrated, and deceptive QR codes are not used. For example, we have seen victims of internet love scams and China official impersonation scams in Singapore knowingly scan legitimate QR codes to initiate fund transfers to the scammer’s bank account or a cryptocurrency address. We have received about 210 such reports in the past three years. Most banks have put in place measures to safeguard e-payments with QR codes. For instance, consumers have to activate their payment app of choice before they can scan QR codes for the e-payment, and have an opportunity to verify the payees’ particulars before authorising the e-payment. This minimises the possibility that they will unwittingly authorise the e-payment to a scammer upon scanning a deceptive QR code. We will continue to work with the banks to study additional measures that can be put in place. But the key in the fight against scams is a discerning public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify that what I had said is that we are looking at putting in statutory form the disclosure requirements. I think Ms Sylvia Lim said or attributed to me a different formulation. So, I just want to be clear.”
“Thanks, Ms He. I was corrected by the Prime Minister that I had mispronounced your name. I think the answer to both questions is, no, I am not saying any of those things. Again, I said we are on the same page. I believe like you that the poor should get legal assistance. We are doing it. I have said that I do not find the current system satisfactory and that we have been discussing for some time how we can do it better. I was addressing my remarks to some of the statements that you made but which were a little bit more absolutist – like this is a human right, this is cast in stone, it has to be done – and I pointed out that some of those may lead us into alleyways and byways which others have found themselves in and then we will get stuck in the weeds, and we would not be able to come back. So, we need to avoid those traps, but try and achieve the objective in a way that will make the Finance Minister reasonably comfortable. Thank you.”
“I do not really have a quarrel with either point. I think the recording of statements other than English, I know that Police have said, and I have a lot of sympathy for them that they have difficulties. We will look at the other countries and their models. But I have expressed the hope we are waiting for artificial intelligence and video-to-text automatically. We have looked at some, but they are not yet mature technologies. On the second point of the role of victims as stakeholders, I think Ms Sylvia Lim would have heard me say, in fact, I have pushed for that. In fact, in 2018, we amended the law so that victims would be given compensation or the Courts would have to explain why they are not being given compensation, if the Courts so choose not to. But we will see where else the right role of victims can be better protected. Thank you.”
“Okay. Now I am left with nothing else to answer. Thank you, Sir.”
“All right. So, I think you will be good enough to agree that if those are the concerns, there is no basis for a commission of inquiry? Thank you.”
“This inquiry internally was done by the CID, which is external to the IOs, and the next level of disciplinary proceedings will also be done properly and I did say to Mr Pritam Singh, if he was interested, I will let him know what the results are. But I need to go and check the law as to whether I am entitled to tell him.”
“Yes, thank you. And, therefore, in terms of how the Police handled it, the two officers – maybe more than two, or whether there were other IOs who have dealt with it at different times – that is a matter for the Police. Internal matter. And you would have heard me saying I welcome Ms Sylvia Lim's point. We do not want to make a scapegoat of this young officer. But, you know, rules are rules. He will be dealt with. So, leave aside the Police. There is no basis for a commission of inquiry against the Police. For AGC, there is no basis for doing a commission of inquiry because if you accept that the AGC officers' conduct will be dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal, they will go into it – why they did it, what they did – you have got your independent inquiry. So, we do not need a commission of inquiry.”
“You are not suggesting – it is good that you have disavowed any suggestion of improper influence. I am happy that you have said that. So, once we accept that, then the question is, on these facts—and I have told you 10% of the cases succeed on appeal. I have told you there is another case where there was a break in the chain of custody. We cannot be having Commissions of Inquiry each time the High Court says that the Police have made a mistake. So, the reason why I was prepared to recommend a commission of inquiry was because I felt your suggestion was Mr Liew had improper influence. But now that you have disavowed that—”
“Lapses do not equate to Commissions of Inquiry. Lapses equate to disciplinary proceedings. Commission of inquiry is if there is something larger.”
“In any system – and you have been in organisations – there will be lapses.”
“There was a lapse, unless we are suggesting or we have reason to believe. Let me tell you this.”
“So, let us leave the Police alone. That is what the Police did.”
“The senior officer is now going to face a Disciplinary Inquiry, too.”
“Okay, then tell me why we need a commission of inquiry.”
“So, wait. Let us deal with the five weeks. I have told you that the IO and the supervisor were wrong and will be dealt with by way of a Disciplinary Tribunal. What is that you propose – what is your allegation? Are you suggesting that they did not do it because of improper influence? If so, say it and we will have a commission of inquiry.”
“Wait, stop, please. The five weeks are a Police issue. It did not go on to anyone else. AGC issue, where it happened at trial, will be dealt with by a Disciplinary Tribunal. So, what is it about the Police – beyond the five weeks?”
“If I could ask you, Mr Leong, I have heard about the four years. I will come back to the four years. Can you just help me because I have said we are happy to have – not happy – but we are prepared to have a commission of inquiry. I did say the officers involved will face Police disciplinary inquiry. Of course, the supervisor will face the disciplinary inquiry, too, because of the five weeks. So, we have settled the five weeks. So, what is it that requires the commission of inquiry? What is troubling you now? Do not give generalities. What, specifically, is the issue?”
“You see, the duties of Members of Parliament, is not to come and repeat whatever is outside but to apply our mind, take whatever feedback there is, crystallise it, apply it to the facts, listen to the arguments on the other side, and then say, “Yes, I see all these; now, I will tell you what it is.” Because if you ask for a Commission of Inquiry, it is because you are not happy with something. You feel that there is a reasonable basis for having an inquiry into something. So, you need to tell us which part of this requires further inquiry. I will answer your other points, but perhaps I can invite you to answer that.”
“But now, he has reversed himself and says, I suppose an hour or so in between, has helped him to recall why he wanted it in the first place. Mr Leong, let me put it this way. You are quite wrong in saying this is an internal review by agencies. Let me explain. First, it has gone through a very public process with detailed cross-examination and an examination in the minute, a forensic examination of all the issues. Every possible issue relating to the Police, and AGC, and the evidence has been dealt with in great detail in public, in cross-examination and in submissions. So, what is it that you want from a review that has not been publicly set out? Then, you have a High Court Judge who sets out his judgment and has set out what he said were the issues. So, you have got a judgment from a High Court, setting out, “This is where I felt that Police were lacking and this is where I think the AGC was lacking”. So, we had that process, which is, I think he would accept, an independent process. Next, as regard to AGC, that is going to go for another Disciplinary Tribunal. And the officers will give account of what they did. It will be dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal or DT, and if the DT feels that there is a case to answer and it needs to be referred, it goes up to the Court of Three Judges. Or the DT dismisses it – whatever it is, that is another independent inquiry. So, that deals with the AGC part of your requirement for the Commission of Inquiry. Then, the Police. Three specific issues were identified: translation and two other issues. I have dealt with them, the three issues.”
“So, he is pushing at an open door on this. Ms Lim talked about more means for seeking compensation. I think she knows 2010, we amended the CPC to require the Courts to actively consider. Because we felt that while we had given the Courts the power to order compensation, we did not see enough cases where compensation was being awarded. So, I actually decided that we had to go further. So, in 2018, the law was further amended and now, the Courts are required to give reasons if compensation is not awarded, where it has the power to do so. That requires an active consideration. Victims are there in a criminal case. Rather than requiring the victims to start another proceedings, decide then and there how much money should be paid. But if for some reason, you think that no money ought to be paid, you set out your reasons. So, victims will be able to participate in the process by making submissions. It is really meant for simpler cases. The criminal Courts are not equipped to deal with complex hearings which are dealt with by civil Courts. And we also should be careful about dragging out proceedings because there is a knock-on effect on the Courts’ ability to deal with other cases. The Courts have also been empowered to order compensation to the dependants of a person whose death was caused by an offence. For example, for bereavement and funeral expenses. So, those are the points I wanted to cover. There are other points which I am sure some other colleagues will cover. Coming back to Mr Leong Mun Wai and the Committees of Inquiry, he will recall the earlier exchange. He has agreed that there was no issue he could identify and there was no need for a Committee of Inquiry, or a Commission of Inquiry.”
“And training of Judicial Officers, again, I agree with Mr Tan, and it is already being done, as he will probably know – Singapore Judicial College. And Mr Tan agrees that this is a good development. Mr Pritam Singh talks about disclosure, setting up a statutory framework on what needs to be disclosed. I think specific on Kadar vs Public Prosecutor, Mr Singh would recall, that I told this House that it is good in principle, the Kadar case, and should be followed. Maybe Mr Singh does not recall, but that is what I said. So, the Government is absolutely ad idem with Mr Singh on this point. Looking at setting out the disclosure requirements in statute, I am happy to tell him that, knowing that he is going to raise it today, we have been discussing it since early this year, internally. It has started with MHA; it is being discussed. I think it is unsatisfactory that it is left as a common law principle. So, we are going to put it out in statute – what is appropriate, what is fair, how do you framework it, which are the cases and principles you take. It is being discussed with various stakeholders; we have not discussed with the bar yet. I think we have discussed it with Supreme Court, I cannot remember specifically. It has been something that we have been discussing since early this year. But this small event of COVID-19 has put many of these things out of kilter. So, a little bit more time is being taken. Mr Singh also talked about how do counsel discuss relevance and non-relevance. I think all I can say to him is, AGC officers have an over-arching duty as ministers of justice. Mr Singh and I cannot be telling them what to disclose and what not to disclose. But the principles are clear. Again, as I have said, we will put it out in statutory form.”
“But on a regular basis, if every case, the state loses, you have got to pay compensation, then, I think I would take a different approach and a different view. I do think that would create chilling effect on prosecution. But I do not think that is what Ms He was suggesting. Mr Dennis Tan expressed his concern about the young and the poor. I say for the record, we are all concerned. Mr Dennis Tan is not the only one who is concerned. I think his concern is legitimate but we are all concerned. He also spoke about judicial training and he spoke about this point about rotation between the different parts of the Legal Service. I have given a very full answer and I have said that these matters are dealt with by various boards headed by the Chief Justice. He decides, together with his board, and there is, I described the Personnel Board for Judges and Personnel Board for Legal Service Officers. Mr Tan also spoke about qualifications of Judicial Officers. These are matters for the Legal Service Commission. They will take into account. I told you about the Judicial Personnel Board. They will deal with it and choose. I think he got some of his facts wrong. The point he made about one year for Magistrates and three years for District Judges, or DJs – that is only possible when the Chief Justice is of the opinion that the person is suitable. Otherwise, the normal process is three years for Magistrates and seven years for District Judges. In the State Courts today, we have 55 Judicial Officers who hear criminal cases. All are qualified persons who are at least seven years. I stand corrected – these are the figures I have been given. If it is inaccurate in any way, I will let Mr Dennis Tan know.”
“And we have an enhanced Streetwise Programme. For those involved in minor gang-related offences, they are sent to these programmes. Our approach today is first, we try and prevent them from getting into Prison. Second, if they commit some offence, as far as possible, we put them in different tracks. We do psychological assessment. Even if they have to serve time, then, we see whether they have to serve the full time or whether they can be put through different programmes and then, put in halfway houses to the extent possible – of course, depending on the nature of the offence. So, that has been the approach and if Members are interested, we can give them a specific, more in-depth briefing. But there has been a very significant change in approach here. Ms Lim talked about victims in a couple of specific cases. Ms Lim, Ms He Ting Ru will accept, I do not know the facts, I do not know why specifically the matter was not proceeded with. All I know from what has been said in Parliament is that AGC advised that it cannot be proceeded with. Beyond that, I do not know anything else and I cannot comment on it. There are always two sides to every story and we will have to ask AGC why it did not proceed. Ms He said that defence lawyers face unequal access to witnesses and evidence. Again, in principle, I agree there should be fair access. What is fair, how do you detail what is fair, there might be a difference of views. It was not quite clear to me what exactly she said. But I am setting out a matter of principle here. Access to counsel, I have dealt with earlier. Ms He Ting Ru also talked about compensation for miscarriage of justice. I think in principle, if it is a vexatious case, if it should never have been brought, compensation ought to be paid.”
“There were some points about young people, what sort of assistance they get when Police interview them, amongst others. Actually, for those who have not been following closely our criminal justice system and our system of imprisonment or incarceration, there has been a sea change in approach. Today, for example, the Prisons service tags itself as Captains of Lives. They are no longer prison wardens. When the people come in, the statistics show that there is a high likelihood of recidivism when they go out. They are going to come back again. So, our task is to actually be with them and make sure as much as possible that they do not come back. We do a lot of intervention when they are in there. We actually want to go earlier, upstream, do not even let them become prisoners, do not even let them get into trouble. What can we do upstream? And we want to look as much as possible, for people who infringe or who have committed some offence. We want to see how we can move them away from the penal system to a more guidance programme for rehabilitation. So, the primary focus, if I can use one word to describe our system today, it is to focus on rehabilitation. Which is why the very significant changes on first- and second-time drug users were put through legislation. And Parliament agreed with it. So, for young people, we have diversionary programmes for those who commit minor offences. In the past four years, four to five hundred guidance programmes cases a year. Completion rate has been about 80% to 90%. We also have a guidance programme for young offenders who commit less serious sexual offences, like possession of obscene films and so on. We give them Adolescence Sexuality Treatment. The Streetwise Programme is a voluntary programme for wayward young people.”
“It is a serious resource issue. The size of AGC is small. The size of the Police's IOs is small. To try and put them together to deal with these thousands of cases, is not going to be easy. Ms Lim said something which I heartily agree with – that the specific Police IO in Ms Liyani's case does not become a scape-goat. I will start out by saying that we do not scape-goat people, but when I come to the Parliament, I cannot shy away from saying what has happened. I cannot shy away from saying that unfortunately – I did say "unfortunately" – he will have to face disciplinary inquiry. In my original statement, I actually said I am personally very sympathetic to the IO. The Police were very uncomfortable with that because they take the disciplinary inquiry seriously and their view was that if the Minister says that, then it creates difficulties for them. But I am very sympathetic to the IO because we are all looking at this with hindsight and with a huge microscope, day by day. So, I do say, "Poor chap". But rules are rules. He was there. He did not do it for five weeks. There are certain consequences. He is in an unfortunate situation. But I entirely agree. Ms Lim also asked about instalment payments for fines. I have said it in the House here. I think we should try when people have difficulties in making payments to allow them to pay in instalments. The difficulty again is to distinguish between who can afford and who cannot afford. We do not want to go down the route of setting up another mechanism, more resources to go and check that. But subject to that, I have given directions earlier this year to the Police to consider in which areas we can go, for possibility of instalment payments on fines.”
“It must be something that the person who is interviewed can understand. I do not think it is going to be possible – the Police are not going to be able to record it in the language the witness speaks. But fairness must be there. So, we need to have the right interpreter and we must emphasise to the IOs that – look, it is not a question of getting down and putting it in the way that you want. It has got to be what the person is saying. This is a constant endeavour. I am sure Ms Lim has, I am sure others have – I have – we have all come across situations where lawyers tell us – well, the statement has been taken in a way that is not quite accurate. They say that. I think you have got to discount some of it because it is seen from a defence's perspective. But it has happened too. So, this is something, as I said, the golden standard would be if we can have video recording but in my Ministerial Statement, I explained, or in my clarifications, I explained the difficulties that we are having. Not that we do not want to do it. Actually, doing it would help the Police. It is protective of the Police but we cannot do it. We cannot expand it because of the specific resource constraints that I spoke about. There was a question on the level of legal training of IOs. The Police officers who take on the IO role do take some legal modules on investigative powers, drafting of charges and statement of facts, to understand the Evidence Act, the burden of proof, presumptions, on general law, on general training for trial preparation. None of that is going to make them a lawyer and, I think, again, the real answer is what one of the Members asked me earlier – how quickly can we put the AGC and Police officers together early in the investigations so that there is that legal guidance?”
“I think that is a situation where other kinds of safety nets will have to come and try and help them. This is where MSF comes in, the local Member of Parliament, or MP, comes in, for situations like that. But where the agencies come across this, some agencies may be able to handle it but, generally, the agencies are not best placed to go and make distinctions between people – okay, you can pay the fine, you cannot pay the fine. I think we will very soon have a system that is dysfunctional. I think that sort of intervention has got to be an intervention from outside of the regulatory agency. But, in principle, we agree that there must be ways to try and find these people help. Ms Lim also talked about how AGC sometimes – I am sure this is based on what the criminal bar has said because they have said this to me too – that officers sometimes prefer the most serious charge. I would put it this way. I think in the Parliament, when we debate like this, it is going to be general statements. If you say they should not put the most serious charge, of course, I agree. But we also agree that neither the Parliament nor MinLaw should be directing AGC on what charges are appropriate. I think the starting point is what the Attorney-General has said at the Opening of Legal Year, which is that the DPPs ought to be told, and have been told, they are ministers of justice. They need to take an overview on this and they need to approach this with fairness. The Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General have regular discussions with the criminal bar. These are issues they can deal with. Recording of statements – again, I think the starting point is the same. We must get accurate statements. It must be fair to the person being interviewed.”
“The Court aims to ensure that the bail reviews are dealt with expeditiously, minimise – we are again on the same page – the time spent by accused persons in remand and balance against the need to ensure that the accused persons attend Court or are available when investigations are required. Since 2018, increasing number of persons in remand are being released on a reduced bail with e-tagging – because we can use technology. Between January and July, more than 180 accused persons have been released on reduced bail with e-tagging. In 2018, I think some Members will recall that the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC was amended to specifically provide for e-tagging and the Police are generally prepared to consider allowing personal bonds in more cases. So, again, on the bail issue, I do not think there is divergence here. Three, on people who cannot afford to pay fines. I think the situation that Ms Lim highlighted was that some people run up a series of regulatory offences and then they find themselves unable to pay and then have to turn up to Court for these matters. It is a tough issue when it comes to this because, in principle, you have the laws, you need to enforce them. I think everybody agrees that you need to enforce them. Because if you have laws and you have fines that can be imposed but if people can break the rules – it can be as simple as parking, if people can park without having to pay the fines and fines will not be collected – then, the system will slowly break down. We cannot have that. We have to impose the fines. But, then, there are a group of people we all feel sympathetic towards because they cannot pay. The fact that they cannot pay the fines then lead some on to other situations which sort of snowball and we really do not want that.”
“The government introduced reforms in 2020 to ensure more sustainable legal aid budgets, including changes in fee structures, introduced fixed-sum lump-sum payments for less serious criminal matters. And guess what? The legal industry opposed it. New Zealand. Fully government-funded public defender's scheme. The total cost rising by 62% from $101 million in 2006 and 2007 to $164 million in 2018 and 2019. There was an independent review of the system in 2009 led by a senior civil servant. She concluded the system was open to abuse, including lawyers who game the system. I am not suggesting that lawyers will necessarily game the system but you have these experiences elsewhere and you got to be careful about it. They delayed plea or changed plea part way through the process, maximised legal aid payments. Lawyers demanded or accepted top-up payments from clients. To curb the bill, they expanded the public defender's scheme but that was also opposed by the bar. We, thankfully, have a relationship with a bar which is more constructive. They do pro bono through CLAS but I have said that we are now considering how we can set up a public defender's office which would be sustainable. So, in principle, there is no issue. The question is – how do you implement it. Second, I think there was a question of bail. I think Ms Lim wondered if the Bail Court was comatose or still in existence. It is functioning, alive and kicking. It is in the State Courts. Court 4A undertakes the role of the Bail Court. It handles the grant of, or review of, bail.”