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 44 of 92.
“It is a privilege – every lady in this room will be able to take public transport at any time of the day and night. That is a fundamental human right. You will not be able to exercise that in any comparable city, anywhere in the world. There is a reason for all of that. That is because cases get dealt with properly. Crime is low. We have kept crime low at a relatively low cost to the taxpayer. But I accept we must also help the poor when it comes to legal aid for criminal cases. Let me tell you about the Australian example – the case of Lloyd Raynay. He was an experienced lawyer accused of murdering his wife, received legal aid in 2013. Cost to taxpayers of his defence was around $2.3 million. Do you believe that that person should get legal aid at that cost in Singapore? I do not think you do. So, we should move away from absolutist positions to say, "How can we make it work?", because we are both on the same side on this argument. Paul Cohrs was accused of murdering his mother and brother in 2018. Close to $1.5 million dollars in assets. He was offered legal aid because his assets were frozen. Court cases get delayed – I am talking about Australia now – because lawyers refuse to take on legal aid cases. Legal aid rates were considered inadequate; cases being adjourned. Victims and witnesses are having to endure a long wait for justice and preparation by prosecutors and the police wasted. In 2016, court cases against alleged murderers of underworld figures, Barbaro and Yilmaz, were put off for more than one year because legal aid rates were inadequate for suitable lawyers to take on the lengthy and complex case.”
“I explained to you by reference to the UK example – that the moment you make it mandatory, then what happens? People game the system too and people game the system in this way. They will not be able to find lawyers who can do it for the fee that the state is prepared to pay, or an extraordinarily exorbitant fee is required, or lawyers do not come forward. And because you cannot find the lawyer to handle the case, therefore the case gets postponed. And I gave you real-life examples from a first class jurisdiction – UK. This is not a figment of anyone's imagination. You have got to deal with that. I think rather than going the same paths that others have gone and gotten into minefields, we should try and make it work. I will also share with you – I had it in my original text but I took it out because of the length – the experience of Australia and New Zealand. New South Wales in Australia offers a fully government-funded public defender's scheme. Two thirds of its cases are outsourced to private lawyers. Government expenditure on criminal legal aid has seen a 50% increase from 2015 to 2019. Every time I show these figures, my Finance Minister gives me a look. Similarly, when we enhanced CLAS in 2014, we were not in a very difficult budgetary position but we were all projecting for a time when we would be in a difficult budgetary position. I did not want to get into a situation where we will just be required to write bigger and bigger cheques without taking into account public interest. The reason why any Member here, with a child who is 10 years old, would dare to let their child take public transport is because of our law and order system. That is a very precious privilege.”
“Thank you, Sir, for letting me participate in this debate. Let me start by trying to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I thank Ms Lim and Ms He for recognising that the criminal justice system, taken in totality, works well – they are not saying the system is broken or ineffective – and that Singapore is a safe place to raise children, and the justice system has been instrumental in achieving that and that our justice system enjoys a good reputation. I think various indices were cited. So, let me try and deal with specific points but let me start off by saying the speeches I have heard, particularly from the Workers' Party. Now, I will come back to Mr Leong Mun Wai. I hope he is in the Chambers. I do not think he is. Okay. Maybe we will have another discussion. I would say – with the Workers' Party and the points made – we are on the same page. In many ways, we are pushing at an open door. It is not that any of these principles are new or in some way not thought of or that we are opposed to them. I think in large measure, from the speeches that I heard, you are setting out positions of principle, which we have no problems with, but sitting on the front bench here, we also got to decide how to implement it and how to pay for it. And so, therein comes some of the implementation issues. If I may say, actually, the very first point I will take illustrates that very well. Legally, I think Ms Lim, Ms He Ting Ru and maybe Mr Dennis Tan talked about the importance of legal aid, particularly for the poor. We cannot be more agreed on this. Of course, we want legal aid for the poor and we do have legal aid for the poor. As I said, CLAS covers 25% of resident households or is intended to. But I have explained why I do not want to make legal aid mandatory.”
“I think the first point made by Mr Murali Pillai about having AGC, greater degree of legal expertise coming up at an early stage is a good one. And I know that that is how the private sector does it – you come in quickly, the lawyers come in, and aid and help the people who are doing the investigations. But I have given you some numbers just now, the thousands of cases that are handled. I think given the number, if you look at the Public Prosecutors we have available, if you look at the IOs we have available, to do that in an integrated way from the beginning, I think would be very challenging. I know Mr Murali Pillai says for a case that is complex. I think we will have to look at these possibilities and identify which case is complex; and sometimes, cases start out as simple and end up as complex. We will consider his suggestion. On the second point that he has made about the Judicial Service Commission. Again, the answer is what I have given earlier. I have given a fairly long answer on how our service is structured, and where it is integrated and where it is separate. I think given the size and given the inherent limitations, that is probably the best model for the time being. 6.00 pm”
“And I will give another example why this has got to be a case-by-case thing. That was a one matter that came to me as a Member of Parliament. This was the alleged victims. They were in the trade – they deal with gold. The gold that they were dealing with was said to be the subject of fraud. And therefore, the Police, at that time, seized the entire amount of gold which was quite substantial and they were investigating the alleged fraudsters. The people who claimed ownership of the gold – and I think there was no doubt that they are entitled to the gold – came to see me to say, "Meanwhile the prices are oscillating, they are going up, they are going down and the Police are holding on to the gold. Can we not please be subjected to this?" And it did go up, quite substantially. By the time it was released, it had gone down quite substantially. So, these things happen. I think the Police approach, generally now, is to try not to seize, as far as possible, if you can get good identification of the items. But you got to assess on the case whether here do I need to seize or do I need to take a photograph. The Police officer assessed that photographs were enough. But having assessed that, the quality of the photographs was not adequate and the way the photographs was taken was not adequate.”
“Did the officer, say, think to himself, "This is such a big man, I had better do certain things." If that is the theory, let us look at his conduct. Why did he wait for five weeks then? Do we think that if he was so concerned, "Hey, I better do this properly", then would he have waited for five weeks? Sir, I am not suggesting that this has been specifically the case, but I am saying to you, actually, the way the matter was handled, negative the suggestion of any implicit extra attention. I think Ms Sylvia Lim may be collapsing two different points. The five weeks – first of all, I want to emphasise over and over again. There is no excuse. It is a breach and it will be dealt with. Again, in good faith and honesty, I am just putting the facts across as an explanation rather than an excuse as to what happened. The time taken to visit the scene is different from why he did not seize the items. As regard why he did not seize the items, I have given an explanation. The Police make a decision as to whether to seize or not to seize. It depends on the facts and the nature of the items and assessment. If a photograph is adequate, then the officer can decide that he will take a photograph. These are day-to-day using items. These items, they say there is prima facie. There is no reason to disbelieve. So, I take photographs and once I have taken the photographs, why do I need the physical items? So, that is what is meant by "I did not want to re-victimise". But Ms Sylvia Lim may recall that I said, that we should have taken colour photographs, and the way the photographs were taken should have been clearer, item by item. So, those were procedural lapses. They should have taken each item and photographed them separately. Some of that was not done for the clothes.”
“On the first point about the High Court, what I said is that the High Court's decision is on the facts before it. It is both natural and understandable. I explained that we did not go about looking for any further evidence to question the High Court. It was the High Court's decision which required us to do further investigations specifically on the Liews and whether any criminal investigations had been committed. So, in the course of the investigations, we came across further evidence. I am a Member of Parliament. I am here, I am making a Ministerial Statement. I have this information in my possession. So, I have to set it out in all good faith and honesty and transparency. And that is all that I am doing. I am not, in any way, therefore suggesting that if this information was there before the High Court, it could have come to a different decision. And I do not want to be making those comments. I am not the High Court Judge and how can I say, "Oh, if this information was there with him, he would have changed his mind." I can say to you this is the information there is. So, I am being very careful about how I have put it. If Ms Sylvia Lim or any Members think that the High Court would have benefited from this information, that is your prerogative for you to think that. But I do not think I should be suggesting that. You could have think otherwise too. You may think that it would have made no difference. So, we are just laying out the facts. What is important for me is to show what the Police and AGC had and I am happy for Ms Sylvia Lim's confirmation that there was no expressed influence by LML or his family. So, the question is, was there some implicit thinking in the back of his mind? It is a question that has struck me. It is an obvious question.”
“I think it is a very stark question: is Ms Liyani guilty? She has been acquitted by the High Court. And I said that we must proceed on that basis and not reopen that issue. We leave it at that and I do not want to be commenting on the decision. As to the word "cavalier", the description was not used by me. Again, on the conduct of the Liews, how you characterise it, I have put across the facts. I have given certain characterisations. I do not think I can usefully add further to those characterisations. But this is not rocket science and I think Members can draw their own conclusions as well based on the facts.”
“So, those are the questions, but those are larger questions. I am dealing with a narrower question of what happened in this case in my Statement.”
“Yes, I am tempted to give the same answer I gave to Mr Leong earlier. In any event, Sir, there are different parts to this question. I recommended it or I suggested it many years ago. This is something I think Mr Singh has asked me more than once or at least once. And I think I have given an answer. The question is: today, we have done an investigation. What are the different parts to the system? There is the Police, there is AGC, we have given an accounting, there is the State Courts, which we will not expect an accounting from. That is something for the Chief Justice to deal with. I do not think anybody is suggesting any kind of bias. There is full accounting – the key question Members have to ask is what was there before the Police and AGC? What was the information? And an accounting of the steps they have taken. And that shows prima facie that there was a good case to proceed. The case in accordance with the usual principles. And they did that. And the confirmations that have been given here about how the matter was dealt with. And that there was no influence-peddling or influence exerted. An ombudsman would do what we would have done. The question is whether the ombudsman takes you further for good governance. And I am happy at some other point to deal with that issue and share examples from different countries how an ombudsman has worked or has not worked and how expectations are set very high and then they are not fulfilled. The real point, Sir, is this. Whether we have a functioning Government with integrity and a civil service and a public service that acts with integrity, that is capable of being questioned here and outside, and is prepared to answer. And we have that. How is governance improved by having any other institution?”
“Mr Vikram Nair is a lawyer, he knows that access is allowed within a reasonable time after investigations begin. What is a reasonable time? It seeks to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and public interest, to ensure thorough, objective investigations. The current situation is that 96% of the persons arrested – this is based on a 2019 study by Police – are released within 48 hours of the arrest. Immediately after they are released, 48 hours, they are able to consult legal counsel. Where it is necessary to continue remanding a person for longer than 48 hours, the Police will have to apply to Court; and the Court will, of course, weigh the different considerations in deciding to order further remand. There have been instances where the Police have applied to Court for an earlier mention date when investigations are completed, before the end of the remand period. Since March 2006, the Police have had an Access to Counsel Scheme to grant an accused person access to counsel during this remand period, as long as investigations have been completed or are nearing completion.”
“So, when we have used outside providers that has resulted in problems too. And we have had to sit back and redo all the statements. So, this has been the issue. While I would like to go down this route, we have had some difficulties.”
“Actually, if you could do video recording, that is a gold standard. Once you have that, there can be no questions about what happened during the statement-taking. We have announced it in phases: Phase 1 has taken place, Phase 2 was earlier this year, but there is a serious bottleneck. Let me explain this. One way is to say we just take a video and use that as evidence, but it could be a three-hour session, or four-hour session. It means AGC will have to spend three hours trying to look at it and then, re-look at it. As opposed to reading a transcript, which is much faster, and time wise, it does not work. Likewise, in the Courts, both at pretrial conferences as well as hearings. It does not work. It does need to be transcribed. The problem has been transcription. Because today, the technology for automatic transcription is not yet mature enough for the document to be precise, to be used in court. And internally, the Police – both have an infrastructure issue in terms of the kind of rooms that are needed, equipped for this. But that is something we can overcome with a lot of money and further resources. But the manpower needed to transcribe is very difficult in this case. So, we have been bottlenecked on moving on to a wider and wider range of cases for video recording because of the administrative processes. So, that is what held us back from expanding. We are doing it. I think the first case where video recording has been done, is going to Court or is in Court. When we have tried outside providers, that has not worked well either, because we saw a lot of errors. And you know, in statement-taking, when you see from Ms Liyani's case, statement-taking can be can be a serious issue in court, with what the words mean or what the words are said.”
“The Police, AGC, State Courts, High Court – all working independently as they should; looking at it, and hopefully the right result is arrived at. I think that is the safeguard. Good people across all the different parts, clear rules, transparency and accountability. When people ask questions, we have to be accountable here. And if something goes wrong, the will to put it right as well. I think those are the things that you need to look at and to be very alert about any kind of influence peddling. The question on capital cases, this is something that has been discussed previously – whether we ought to have two judges instead of one. We had two judges and then we moved to one judge. The Member's question is whether we go back to two judges and five judges on appeal. It is not something that implicitly the Government is opposed to, but it is something that will need to be discussed. I do not know that you need five judges on appeal, necessarily. But this is something that we will discuss with the Courts.”
“The duration of the case, and I will have to stand corrected if I get anything wrong here. Let me try and speak from memory. In December 2016, the investigation started. I think it took about six months to June, middle of 2017, for the papers to be sent to AGC and then there was back and forth as I had said between AGC and the Police. It took about six months because of the number of items and the Police had to check the items and so on. I think the first pre-trial conference was in late 2017, if I am not wrong. And dates were taken for early 2018. There were some difficulties with counsel's diaries. So, the case was then tried in 2018. The High Court hearing took place in 2019 on appeal and judgment was delivered in 2020. I think the High Court hearing took place over three different tranches and spread over from 2019 to early 2020. I think it was a question of dates as well. So, these are matters that are not really within our control. I think Mr de Souza had another question on entrenchment of impartiality; what more we can do? That is a very important question. We have to take very seriously what I said just now, about we got to be always on guard to see some sort of — Explicit bias, we can all see. But implicit bias, growing in, we have got to guard against that. I think the system we have today is the best that we can find in the sense that the Police have a clear role. They investigate, they work with AGC. At AGC, there are chains of command. AGC acts as a sieve. As you notice, if you take foreign domestic workers, 25% of the theft cases go for prosecution. Not insignificant, but at the same time it is not as if every case goes for prosecution. They make an assessment. Then, you have the system of Courts. This is what I meant by the system at the top level.”
“Sir, I took the House through the facts so that we can understand the information that the Police and AGC had. Also, the further investigation that was necessitated by the High Court's comments. And then, we got information which we had to set out to this House. That information was not before the High Court, as I said. And I said that the High Court ruled the inference that it did, naturally and understandably, based on the information that it had. And I am not in a position to say anything really beyond that.”
“If there is a specific concern about what has been set out in the HOME statement, a question can be put up and we can deal with it. But I will say this. Though it arises from a Police report that Ms Liyani has made – not Ms Liyani, I think HOME had made. A number of things. Four things were mentioned. One was the translation issue that I had dealt with. The other was the fact that five weeks were taken, which I have dealt with. I really wonder how these are matters for filing of a Police report. The fact that the IO took five weeks is a matter that a victim files a Police report to complain about? And I think, Mr Singh, we all know that Ms Liyani is not doing this. We know why this is being done. But the Police will deal with it and will respond in due course. And I am not suggesting that anybody in this House is responsible for it.”
“On the Annexes, Mr Singh, there was a set that they were distributing but let me go and check. I think other Members also say they do not have it, so I will check. During the break, they were supposed to have distributed but we will try and make sure of that. I apologise. So, that is a small matter. Now, the lapse. Again, let us be clear. The manpower issue cannot be an excuse. Let us be clear about that. I have made that clear. It is a breach of Police rules, it is a breach of the law and disciplinary action is being taken. I will have to check whether the rules allow this but if the rules allow this, I will find out the details of what happened and I am happy to share it with Mr Singh, when eventually it is dealt with. In this case, it is not to be treated as a precedent. The broader reason for this is, of course, a matter of concern. And in my Ministerial Statement I said I have asked myself how often are IOs under such kind of pressure. So, there is a review, the Police will come back to me and let me know how much pressure they are under. But I have given you the broader statistics and you can understand in every aspect of policing work. It is not a matter unknown to you all. I think Ms Sylvia Lim has raised it more than once in this House about the pressure that lack of manpower resources have put the Police under. It is common to both sides of the House on this issue. But I have asked on the extent of the pressure and I will get a better sense of it. On the statement by HOME, I have not been able to look at it very carefully. But we have focused, in my Ministerial Statement, on what the Judge dealt with. As far as I am concerned, those are the issues that are raised, that I have to deal with here.”
“I am always happy to hear from you, Mr Singh. Sir, I had intended to say that I am prepared to recommend to Cabinet to hold a Commission of Inquiry if the Member stands by his views, despite what he has heard today, and provided he will come to the Commission and repeat those allegations. But so far we have heard nothing that I can rationally put together to justify a Commission of Inquiry. So, I will leave it at that. I think I have answered all the Members' questions. And if Mr Singh wants to ask something, so yes.”
“I have not quite. I thought you wanted to take part in the exchange.”
“I have to say, Mr Leong, it is not right to come here and say, "I think that a Commission of Inquiry is necessary. I cannot tell you why. I cannot tell you what my concerns are. I cannot pinpoint anything. I make no allegations. But in general, you know, it is good to have a Commission of Inquiry." Commissions of Inquiry do not proceed that way. Let me put it on record. I have no problem recommending such a Commission of Inquiry. Obviously, I am not saying this without having consulted with my Cabinet colleagues. Cabinet will be prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry. We have nothing to hide, completely transparent about this issue. But it is not, in law, they would say, micawberism. It is not because something strikes your mind and suddenly you get this idea, that we have Commissions of Inquiry. You have had several weeks now since the High Court judgment. If there is something specific, put it down, we will hold a Commission of Inquiry. So far, I have heard nothing.”
“The High Court has acquitted Ms Liyani. That is final. This House is now dealing with whether there was any improper influence exerted on AGC or the Police. I have given you the facts. I have given you categorical confirmations as to at which level this was handled. I have also said as a result of the High Court's comments, the investigations, some facts came out which we are disclosing to you. I have also said later this evening an announcement will be made as to what are the next steps to be taken as a result of those investigations. I am not prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry to look into this issue of motive. It cannot properly be the object of a Commission of Inquiry.”
“The interpretation of motive has got nothing to do with the Government, Government organs. I have just explained why that was put forward. It has got nothing to do with how the Police proceeded. It has got nothing to do with how AGC proceeded. It is something that has come out in the course of the investigations, subsequent investigations. How is that a subject matter of a Commission of Inquiry?”
“Mr Leong, I have said that there are 250,000 foreign domestic workers and about 200,000 families. How they interact with each other cannot be the subject of a Government Commission of Inquiry. The Government Commission of Inquiry has got to look at Government institutions and organs. I have talked about the motive issue. I have explained why it is not to cast doubt on anything but to say we had to investigate because the High Court made some observations. As a result, we made the investigations. Now I have the information in my hand, I have no choice but in duty of frankness, I have got to put it to this House. But I explained what was the evidence that AGC and the Police had, so that Members understood what was the prima facie evidence that Police and AGC had. It is legally not possible to hold a Commission of Inquiry to look into the conduct of employers and maids. That is not the business of the Commissions of Inquiry.”
“Mr Leong, if it is the five weeks, I have told you, I said to the House, there is no excuse for the five weeks. I said there is no excuse but I asked for an explanation. The Police do not in any way seek to defend it, but we gave an explanation. I said there are manpower issues but that is not an excuse and the officer is facing disciplinary proceedings. So, what is it about the five weeks that concerns you? Is it that he was unfairly influenced? Is it something else? He should not have taken that length of time. He will be disciplined. His reasonings will be gone into and he will be dealt with. If it is about the five weeks, I am not prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry for that purpose, because the question you asked does not make sense to me. Is there any other issue that you are concerned about?”
“I have told you what has happened and I told you there are disciplinary proceedings against the officer. So, what is it exactly that you are looking for? And I will be prepared to recommend to the Cabinet to hold a Commission of Inquiry.”
“Not quite. First, let us settle this. I do not understand why if you knew the difference between a Committee of Inquiry and a Commission of Inquiry, you have asked me to do something that is not possible. It does not make any sense, but let us move on. All I want to know, the public defender's office, for example, the Commission of Inquiry will have nothing to do with that. It is a policy statement. So, Mr Leong, can I ask you, a Commission of Inquiry is a serious business. We are not shying away from it. I am prepared to recommend it. That is not the issue. But as I said, it is not a question of making some broad and vague statements. You are a representative of the people. We take it seriously. This is serious business. It is not a question of saying, "I am not a lawyer. Lawyers said something about contamination of evidence". I have set out in the House what has happened. I would expect you to be able to tell me based on what you have heard which part leaves you concerned with either the influence peddling issue or any other issue. I mean, waht do we have a Commission of Inquiry on the entire legal, the Police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So, can we please have some clarity on what is it that concerns you? What aspect? I assume you have read the judgment. I assume you have read the key material. I assume you knew that there was something specific or a set of specific issues that you want to focus on – which is why you asked. So, what are those issues? What is it that you want the Commission of Inquiry to look into which has gone wrong? Is it the translation issue? I have told you what happened with the translation. Is it the fact that they took five weeks – the Police – to go and look for the items.”
“I think it is a fair question. And this was said in 1963 when the number of officers was much smaller. What is the situation now? Today, all movements in the Legal Service are overseen by Personnel Boards and/or Committees all chaired by the Chief Justice, and the Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the President. The Legal Service Commission takes the view that rotation has three major benefits. One, it provides access to a larger pool of talent to select State Court Judges with the right blend of temperament, knowledge and experience. Two, it develops Legal Service Officers (LSOs) into well-rounded officers by exposing them to, and training them in, different fields of legal work and allowing them to learn about their strengths and weaknesses. And this benefits the Legal Service and Singapore, no matter where the LSOs are posted in future. Three, this also gives flexibility, for instance, to accommodate LSOs who want to try different types of work, or LSOs who have a change of heart about their preferred line of work. Judges who have prosecutorial experience will bring added knowledge to the work. However, significant changes have also been made. In 2014, the Prime Minister announced greater specialisation in the Legal Service. There are now two separate career tracks for the middle ranks of LSOs. One is the “Legal” track and the other is the “Judicial” track. LSOs on the Judicial track are posted to jobs within the Judicial Branch and they are assessed by a separate Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board headed by the Chief Justice.”
“If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would have to have 9,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as London, we would need 6,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as New York, we would need 11,000 more officers. So, Members can understand and appreciate the load on our officers and, as I have said, I have spoken about this in the House more than once. And my concern is that there is a limit to how much our officers can do with increasing workload and increasing expectations, but without a proportionate increase in manpower. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked how many State Court Judges had previously worked as prosecutors in the AGC and whether the Ministry will review the policy of separation of duties. This point has come up previously and let me put it this way. The total number of lawyers in our Legal Service and Judiciary, excluding High Court Judges, is 801. That is a relatively small number. In this context, the question is: why are officers posted between the State Courts and other parts of the Legal Service? Can there be independence if they are liable to be cross-posted? Let me quote something quite dated. Mr A P Rajah, a former Speaker and High Court Judge, said in 1963: “He thinks that if you are a DPP, then you cannot be a good District Judge; if you are a District Judge, then you cannot be a good DPP; if you are a first-rate DPP, then you cannot make a first-rate Assize Judge. He seems to suffer from that misapprehension. Merely to say that because one has been a DPP and that, therefore, when he gets on to the Bench, he is going to side with the prosecution, is not correct and is not fair to the profession.” I am not suggesting that Mr Lim Biow Chuan or anyone else is under any misapprehension.”
“From 2015 to 2019, an average of 2,741 foreign workers on work permits were arrested each year as potential accused. Interviews have to be done quickly. I have earlier said Police are already very stretched. Let us not stretch them further. It will be a very difficult exercise. Appropriate Adults attended to 2,300 activations in 2019. These cases involved minors and mentally vulnerable persons. If we had to provide AAs for every foreign worker interviewed, we would have to minimally double the current volunteer pool, provide the training and resourcing; and some may require more than one statement, and this will become a real constraint and load on the Police. And each time you have an interview, you have to look for an Appropriate Adult. Interviews will be delayed if the AA is not available. Evidence could go missing. There are other issues. The foreign workers are adults. The key is for Police to make sure that the foreign workers understand the questions and their answers are properly recorded. And it has to be open for scrutiny in Court, which it is. So that Members can understand the load on our officers, I will share the following. As I said earlier, Police investigated 66,200 criminal cases in 2016 and they were handled by 1,100 IOs. Just to give Members a sense, the ratio of Police officers to population – I have spoken about this previously in the House and I am here referring to Police officers in general, not just IOs – New York at 0.42%, London at 0.34%, Hong Kong at 0.39%, Singapore at 0.23%, including full-time National Servicemen. If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would need 9,100 more officers. My entire Police force today comprises 13,200 Police officers, including National Servicemen.”
“And we have got to make sure of that. And if it starts, then very few things can save such a country. In this case, if we had seen anything wrong by way of influence peddling, swift, open, transparent action would have been taken. Sir, I have spoken at some length on the case and on the broader issues. Now I will deal with the questions Members have raised by way of Parliamentary Questions, or PQs, which I have not already dealt with. Mr Murali Pillai, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Derrick Goh have asked a number of questions about the High Court’s observations, the agencies’ processes, the internal reviews and related questions. Part 1 of my Statement has covered these points. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Derrick Goh have also asked for some information on foreign domestic workers, theft cases, Court proceedings. I have said earlier, Police investigate around 14,000, in fact, 14,122 theft-related cases – I think that was in 2016. For the specific offence of Theft as a Servant, an average of 528 arrests annually, about 48% of them are foreign domestic workers. On average, about 70, or 27% of the 255 foreign domestic workers, were prosecuted. We do not track data on how many of them claimed trial or how many of them had legal representation. At the same time, on the reverse side of the coin, from 2015 to 2019, 115 employers were prosecuted for committing offences against foreign domestic workers. This includes cases of physical and sexual abuse. Sixty-five persons have been convicted, 21 cases are pending. Mr Louis Ng asked if foreign domestic workers and other work permit holders can be accompanied by non-legal personnel, similar to the Appropriate Adults, or AAs, scheme, for Police interviews.”
“Big businesses extensively lobby regulators, using middlemen. I personally think this is not good for the healthy functioning of society. Lobbying itself in the US is a massive business. Big Pharma, for example, spent US$4.45 billion on lobbying alone over the last 22 years. And it works. One study found that regulators were 45% less likely to initiate enforcement action against banks that lobby versus banks that do not. The experience of South Africa offers another example. In South Africa, "State Capture" is a buzzword because of how private interests have exerted influence over government decision-making and used this influence to plunder the state. Corruption scandals involving the former President and the Gupta brothers are the most famous examples. It is, of course, an extreme example of the system going awry. The critical question for us: how do we ensure that the system stays clean, that we do not allow what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee warned against? We have a media that highlights these issues. See the number of articles that have appeared on this matter in the Singapore media - accountability, because a well-educated, aware population that holds us accountable; and Parliament, where we have these issues to be openly discussed, debated. All these are essential. But these factors are also present in many countries where influence peddling is, nevertheless, a cancer. We have avoided that slippery path because, in addition to the above, we have had in our three Prime Ministers the strong will to ensure a clean system and the decisiveness to act when something goes wrong. And always, always, regardless of your rules and regardless of your systems, the rot starts at the top. If the top is clean, then your systems can work well.”
“Former Commissioner of Police Goh Yong Hong was also his law school contemporary. And the succeeding Commissioner of Police Tee Tua Ba was Prof Jaya’s law student. The Attorney-General and I were his law students as well. I had spent 22 years in private practice; I worked with many Senior Counsels, senior lawyers, appeared before many Judges. Our small size means these connections and interactions are inevitable. And so, we will always have to be very careful, always remember we are fiduciaries. This is a sacred trust. We do this for the people. We do the right thing. Do not allow any corrosion of public interest. Act with honour. Be worthy of the trust people have reposed in us. It is critical that, whatever the relationship, the Government maintains high standards of probity, of conduct so that decisions are made on objective and impartial assessment. And have we lived up to those standards? Members can ask that question honestly. What is the lived reality for Singaporeans? How much corruption do people encounter here? We rank highly on credible international indices, for absence of corruption, for rule of law, for the way our system functions cleanly. This is a country known for all these – and that continues to be the case. What happens if you allow the system to go awry? What happens when you allow influence peddling? What happens when you allow corruption, abuse of position, abuse of power? Let me just give a couple of examples. First, the US. Influence peddling has become part and parcel of politics and governance. The US Supreme Court has said: “Ingratiation and access embody a central feature of democracy.” Not against the law for officials to set up meetings, host events, call other officials on behalf of lobbyists.”
“But do not worry, it does not happen every time people come and have coffee with me. If it is criminal, of course, there will be prosecution. And there have been MPs and ex-MPs who have been prosecuted. If there are breaches of other rules, the respective professional or regulatory bodies will take action, as they have done. We do not intervene or try and stop any of this. I have dealt with this at some length because we must understand these are fundamental values. And if we do not keep them, we will be in trouble. In Singapore, in this context, we have a more challenging environment because we are a small place. A lot of people know each other – many educational, professional, work-related, social familial connections. Same schools, colleges, Universities, time spent in National Service, other connections. People interact with each other frequently. We try and look for the people on the basis of merit and they will often, because of their careers and education, have deep connection with many others whom they interact with. The way we handle this – make sure the persons appointed are men and women of character. They have the moral fibre to do the right thing. Earlier I had said, the Attorney-General recused himself from the review because of his history with LML. What will the position be if he was, in fact, a close friend of LML? We will expect him to disclose that and recuse himself as well from any decision making. This is how the system works. Let me give a few examples. Prof S Jayakumar, when he was Minister for Law, what were his connections? When he was Dean, Law School, the then-AG’s wife had been his Vice-Dean. Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had been his law school contemporary.”
“A few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence Ministries and Statutory Boards, to make decisions in their favour. Personal favours, big and small, are just some of the countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obliged to them. At all times, be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours. Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies or who sit on company boards, should be especially vigilant. You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must be always above board. We have held our position because our integrity has never been in doubt. Always conduct yourselves with modesty, decorum, dignity." I can tell Members this. This is all not just nice sounding advice. Even before it reaches the kind of conduct referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter, if we feel that there is some conduct that requires a closer look, we do take a closer look. I am referring here to conduct which is not criminal, not a breach of ethics, but which in our view should be avoided; something that may be legal but, for example, lead eventually to something which is not of so good odour. When we sense that, I usually have a chat with the relevant MP. They come, have a cup of coffee with me. When they leave, the issue is usually resolved. And if it is not resolved, then they do not remain as MPs.”
“The dominant majority is thus able to point out that those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to this elite group. Thus, many able and aspiring people are denied the opportunity for the full use of their abilities." I personally find these words very powerful, insightful and have more than once quoted this speech of Dr Goh in my own speeches because Dr Goh, I think, has identified precisely a serious, insidious risk in any society including ours. We are not that special that we can be immune to these risks. We have to constantly make sure that we do not allow it. We have to be very careful to try and stamp it out wherever it appears, and make no mistake, make no mistake. It will keep appearing in big and small ways. This is again something successive Prime Ministers have been vigilant about. One illustration of that is the letter that the Prime Minister sends out at the start of each new term of the House. Most Members are aware of the letter. I have put it in Annex 8. [Please refer to Annex 8.] I will quote parts: "the context each time may be different but the subject remains constant. Integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance. One vital factor to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity. The reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. I cannot stress strongly enough every Member of Parliament (MP) must uphold the rigorous standards we have set for ourselves, do nothing to compromise them, never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers.”
“We have curbed, restrained, prevented any distortion of policies which would have been inevitable if the personal interests of the few in charge were allowed full rein. This is the case in many new countries. When those in office regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative, they inevitably enrich themselves, promote their families, favour their friends. The fundamental structures of the modern state are eroded, like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked them. Then, the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders.” And as early as 1961, the late Dr Goh warned about the risks, that groups of elites might create an environment that would favour one community at the expense of another. In an article in Nanyang University journal, 1961, he said, and I quote, "To achieve an honest and energetic administration appears easy in theory. In practice, very few of the young and emergent nations have achieved this. Even in the most advanced and leading societies, whether communist or democratic, the problem of nepotism is a recurring one and can only be countered by constant vigilance. In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism that is to be feared, but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no illegalities are committed, but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families. In underdeveloped countries, the matter could be more serious. A system may arise in which the dominant majority, whether of families, clans or even entire communities, arrogates to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power.”
“In 2012, you had Peter Lim, Commissioner of SCDF – in fact, he was Commissioner of SCDF when I was Minister for Home Affairs too – convicted of corruption charges for receiving sexual favours with three different women, sentenced to six months' imprisonment, dismissed from public service following disciplinary proceedings. In 2013, you had Mr Edwin Yeo, Assistant Director of CPIB, misappropriating money, jailed for 10 years for criminal breach of trust or CBT as a public servant and forgery. In 2007, you had Mr TT Durai, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation, convicted for corruption, sentenced to imprisonment; appeal to the High Court dismissed. In 2012, you had Mr Howard Shaw, then-Executive Director of the Singapore Environment Council, convicted for obtaining commercial sex with minors; had asked for a nominal fine based on testimonials of his good character and social standing. Court found no exceptional circumstances; 12 weeks' imprisonment. Sentence was to provide a strong deterrent to others. Peter Lim was a senior Home Team officer. In many countries, his actions would not have attracted criminal punishment. In most countries, Commissioners of SCDF, Assistant Directors of CPIB, are pretty much untouchable. But not in Singapore. The message is it does not matter who you are, if you do wrong, action will be taken. But it is not only corruption that we must guard against. We must also guard against what I call soft corruption and influence peddling. Let me quote what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee have said. In 1984, Mr Lee said, and I quote, "We exercised power as trustees for the people, with an abiding sense of our fiduciary responsibility. Our honour, our sense of duty made us exercise power scrupulously.”
“Thus, it is essential that we have a fair system, that we have a clean system, that we have a system that gives opportunities to all. These are our fundamental concerns. If LML did unfairly influence the proceedings, then it will be a hit to our foundations and it will be a hit to our sense of fairness, equality and justice. And a dent to Project Singapore itself because Singapore is built on these ideals. We have always been jealous about guarding against such corrosion. It does not mean that there will be no abuse of power and no corruption. But when it happens, swift, decisive action must be taken. Members will know successive Governments have been clear about this. There has to be a ruthless intensity in upholding integrity. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set the tone. The case of Mr Teh Cheang Wan is a prime example of the approach. He was one of the most senior Members in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Cabinet. But when corruption allegations surfaced, Mr Lee directed the CPIB to conduct investigations. Mr Teh was placed on leave of absence. He ultimately chose to end his life rather than face trial or corruption charges, which the AGC had then yet to settle. Mr Lee said at that time, and I quote, "There is no way a Minister can avoid investigations and a trial if there is evidence to support one." These were the values of our Founding Generation and these are and have to be our continuing values. They have been scrupulously stressed and adhered to by the two succeeding Prime Ministers. They are like religious commandments. There cannot be any compromise. When there is a breach, action is taken, will be taken. Let me refer to some cases.”
“The Trial Courts consider the sufficiency of the evidence and the legal issues. The Appellate Courts review the decision of the Trial Court. The case shows that the criminal justice system, as a whole, works. If you drill down to the next level, we have "systems". For example, these would comprise investigative protocols, SOPs for how the Police and the DPPs operate. I have mentioned some errors that were made, we have to try and strengthen the "systems" at that level, try and prevent re-occurrence. I have also mentioned the challenges. Besides these levels to the system, there will always be the risk of mistakes by individuals. These lapses will have to be dealt with. Sir, the idea of Rule of Law is central to our ideas of fairness, equality and justice. It is even more important in the current zeitgeist that is sweeping through countries. Societies around the world are grappling with debates on inequality, a sense that the elite are creaming off most of the economic benefits and bending the rules and systems to their advantage, and in the process buying off, suborning those in Government. People are fed up with unfair structures; equal opportunities are drying up. In Singapore, we are not in the same situation. Our active intervention in socio-economic issues has helped most people to benefit. But our people know we must jealously guard the availability of equal opportunities. We must ensure that everyone has a fair shake. We must be alert, guard against the wealthy and the powerful taking unfair advantages. If a significant section of our people feel that the system favours some, or that it is unfairly stacked against them, then Singapore will lose its cohesion and it cannot succeed.”
“Again, neither LML nor anyone acting for them, approached AGC or had any contact with AGC in this case. AGC dealt with Police. There have been some questions asked specific to the Attorney-General, that he was on the Board of Directors of Capitaland between 20 November 2000 and 2 January 2006 when LML was the President and CEO. As a result, did AG in any way influence the proceedings? The answer is no. AG did not know of these investigations or proceedings until the case went for trial. There is a further point. AG resigned from the Capitaland Board with effect from 2 January 2006. He resigned because he had a difference of viewpoints with LML on some issues. When AGC conducted its internal review on this matter, AG recused himself. AG felt that given the history of differences he has had with LML, the perception of fairness may be affected if AG oversaw the review. Thus, AG had nothing to do with this case at any stage. The case was conducted by the State Courts in open Court in accordance with the Rules. This case is, in fact, an illustration of how the Rule of Law applies. A foreign domestic worker is charged, the High Court acquits her, the Complainant is a wealthy, powerful person, but all are equal before the Law. It does not matter who the parties are, Justice according to the facts and the Law as the Courts see it. We may agree or disagree with the State Court's or High Court’s decisions and conclusions, but that is a different matter. If you look at it at a systemic level, at the highest level, you talk about the criminal justice system – we have the Police who investigate in accordance with the legal framework for Police investigations. AGC make the charging decision based on available evidence and public interest.”
“Sir, in Part 2, I will go to the broader questions that I identified, which is an inquiry, or rather, the questions I have dealt with in Part 1 inquiring into how the investigations and prosecution were conducted. Here, I want to go into the broader questions. The key question is whether the case was handled differently because of the status of the complainant or if there has been any improper influence. Really, if I were to put it this way – did LML in any way influence these proceedings or was the case investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rules like any other case? I have said it earlier and I will reiterate. I can be categorical. There was no influence by LML. It was treated as any other theft case and handled accordingly. We have checked with the IOs, their supervisor, the DPPs and their director. They have confirmed this. There was no pressure or influence exerted on them by LML or anyone acting on his behalf, and they handled this case as they have handled other theft cases. I will now deal with the Police. I have set out how the Police handled the matter and what they took into account. It was dealt with by the IOs. Decisions were taken by them, together with their immediate supervisor. The case did not come to the attention of the senior management either at the Police or in my Ministry. No one senior has spoken with or been influenced by LML or any of the Liews on this case. Meaning, as I said, it was dealt with by the IOs and their immediate supervisor and no one beyond that. No one lobbied or exerted pressure either on the IOs or on the supervisor, or on anyone in a position to influence the investigations. Turning to AGC, I have explained how the matter was dealt with by AGC. It was dealt with by DPPs and cleared at the level of a Director.”
“They certainly did not act at the behest of the Liew family. And this is how our system is supposed to work – Police and AGC made up their assessments based on the evidence. The State Court agreed with the prosecution and convicted Ms Liyani. The High Court disagreed, overtuned the conviction, felt there were reasonable grounds to doubt the motives of the Liew family in making the Police report. Again, this shows how our system works. The rest, Sir, I will deal with in Part 2. What I have said is the fundamental question relating to our systems. And I wonder, Sir, if this is an appropriate time to take a break.”
“The matter was thoroughly ventilated and considered by both the State Courts and the High Court. It was one of those 10% of cases where the Appeal Court disagreed with the Lower Court. Sir, I have covered the points specific to the case. Let me now set out what happened in summary: one, there was clear evidence for the Police to investigate and for the AGC to prosecute this case; the Police and AGC dealt with this case like they deal with other theft cases. There are questions about some aspects of one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, the claim of ownership of some items and the valuation by them – that appears to have been quite cavalier, to say the least. Questions also arise about Ms Liyani’s conduct and evidence. The High Court gave Ms Liyani the benefit of doubt because it was troubled by one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, and because there were questions relating to her statements. There are aspects of trial preparation where Police and AGC can improve. Finally, the key point: there was nothing improper nor any undue pressure on the Police or AGC at any stage of these investigations and proceedings and no evidence of any personal connection between the Liews and any Police officer, DPP, Judge involved in this case. I have gone through all of this because we have to show the Police and the AGC did not act arbitrarily, or as the result of the influence of a rich and influential family. Those were the accusations that circulated immediately after the learned Justice Chan issued his judgment – that there was a grave miscarriage of justice, and AGC and the Police were asked to apologise. What I put forward to this House show that the Police and AGC had good grounds to charge Ms Liyani.”
“Nine were appeals from the State Courts to the High Court and seven were appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. So, even between the High Court and Court of Appeal, there are differences of view. For example, in one of the cases Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v PP & anor [2019] 1 SLR 440, chain of custody issues also arose. In another case, PP v GCK [2020] SGCA 2, the State Court convicted the accused for outrage of modesty. He was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment, three strokes of the cane. The High Court reversed the conviction, and acquitted the accused, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence. On a criminal reference, the Court of Appeal reinstated the conviction but substituted the original sentence, with a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. So, our State Court: one view. High Court: different view. Court of Appeal: a different view again. The question for us, as I have said more than once, is not which Court was right or wrong. The key question: was the case conducted fairly in both Courts? The State Court heard evidence from 12 Prosecution witnesses, four Defence witnesses, including Ms Liyani, over 20 days. It had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, consider their evidence, Ms Liyani’s submissions, and it made its findings. The High Court considered the Lower Court’s findings and Ms Liyani’s further submissions over three days and came to a different view. This became a long and somewhat complex, or complicated, case. The Record of Proceedings runs to almost 3,700 pages. I have brought this House through some of the issues in detail, as I said earlier, to give Members a slightly better appreciation of the evidence.”
“Prosecution's overarching role is to ensure that justice is done and not to win the case at all costs. The point is not being made by reference to this case. It is a general point. AGC has consistently emphasised this point to all its officers and will continue to do so. The Attorney-General himself has also publicly stressed his Chambers' commitment to the principle of even-handed justice, in his speeches at the Openings of the Legal Year, and elsewhere. Now, I will move to the High Court's views on the State Court's judgment. First, some background on cases dealt with by the State Courts. The State Courts deal with most of the criminal cases in Singapore. The appeals go to the High Court. About 10% of these appeals succeed, for instance, in setting aside the convictions or reducing the sentence. Ms Liyani’s case falls in that 10%. This 10% of cases – there can be different views on evidence, on law, the exigencies of trial process, for example, witnesses say different things or something new turns up. The High Court disagreed with the Trial Judge's assessment of the evidence and made observations. With that as background, I will say the views expressed by the High Court fall within the range of cases where an Appellate Court disagrees with a Lower Court. In some of these cases, the Appellate Court does take a different interpretation of the evidence, draws different inferences, comes to different conclusions. That is the function of the Appellate Court when it takes the view that the Lower Court has made an error. In 2018 and 2019, there were 16 appeals by the accused against conviction, when the Appellate Court disagreed with the Lower Court and reversed the decision.”
“The High Court also made observations about the AGC on how the functionality of the DVD player was demonstrated in Court. AGC has filed an affidavit explaining its position on record. The matter is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings. And thus, I will refrain from commenting on this. I have been given a detailed note by AGC. I can set out the position, but I prefer not to. The disciplinary proceedings are by nature, disciplinary. There are possible penal sanctions. There will be full account of what the DPPs did, at the Disciplinary Tribunal or DT. The key question before us is whether there was any improper influence on them. Minister Indranee has discussed this with Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, who was also concerned that we should not go into this in Parliament. Let the DT handle it. The proceedings are penal in nature. I think lawyers will understand why we take this approach. AGC has also identified specific areas where it needs to improve. I will mention two areas. First, the valuation of items that are the subject of property offences. In this case, the valuation of the items in the charges were derived from the Liew family's estimates. This has been the general practice hitherto, to rely on the complainant's assessment of the value. There are currently no formal guidelines for Prosecutors on the issue of valuation. Prosecutors are expected to use their judgement and discretion. AGC is developing guidelines on this issue. Independent assessment of the value of the items may have helped in respect of some of the items in this case. Second, AGC is also looking at how it prepares for trials and will seek to learn from this and other cases. There is a further, but general and important point.”
“The Police's review has shown that the layout of the photographs was also not satisfactory. Some photos featured multiple items in a single photograph, with some overlapping and partially obscured. The third point the High Court made: the inaccuracies in recording the statements, the pace at which the questions were asked and the time when one statement was taken. And thirdly, the provision of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter. I have dealt with the interpretation issue earlier. On this issue, I have said to Police officers we need to make sure accused persons understand the statement recording process, what it involves, what is required of them. I have asked the Police to ask what language the person wishes to speak, which they do, but also explain briefly what the process entails and the purpose of the statement. And that the accused may ask for an interpreter at any time and that this should be recorded as part of the statement. The High Court also pointed out that there were inaccuracies in the way questions were phrased and there were grammatical errors. Police have said to me that it is difficult to make sure there are no grammatical errors. But I think everybody agrees they need to try and make sure grammatical errors, if any, should not affect the interpretation and understanding of the statement itself. The Police accept the point made about the time when statements are taken. Sometimes, the timing is inevitable, because of the legal requirement to release a person under investigation, within 48 hours. The Police will have to make an assessment on whether the person is capable of understanding the questions at the time the statements are taken. As I have said, Police will take the comments on board.”
“I said there can be no excuse. I have nevertheless asked for an explanation as to why this has happened. I am told that the officer involved had a number of other on-going cases, prosecutions, arrest operations and a very personal matter that he had to deal with. He seems to have been under a lot of pressure. He was in a predicament. It is a situation that many Home Team officers find themselves in. It is a reality of what our officers go through. Nevertheless, internal investigations are being carried out in relation to the conduct of the officers involved in this case and action will be taken, as necessary. I must say, Sir, I have noticed in various parts of the Civil Service, quite a lot of our officers are under work pressure. I have mentioned it at other points in this House. It is a general situation in some workplaces, many workplaces in Singapore with tight manpower issues, particularly in several areas of the Civil Service. I have asked for a review of the workload of Police investigation officers, though quite frankly, there is no easy solution because fundamentally, it is a manpower issue. Technology has helped, will help, but that has limits. The Police are also looking into online case management systems, to prompt officers on next steps in investigative workflows and ensure accountability and minimise the risk of lapses in investigations. Next, I turn to photos. The second point that the High Court made about the Police was that "poor quality" black-and-white photos were shown to Ms Liyani. Police agree that colour photos would have been more effective. Colour photos were shown to Ms Liyani in her final statement when a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was also provided. Police will take on board the High Court's comments, which are fair.”
“So, the question is, was there a clear, prima facie case for the Police to investigate? There was such a case. The Police had a duty to investigate. If any Member feels that Police should not have investigated, I would be happy to hear and understand their perspective. The High Court commented on investigative processes, pointed out three aspects, which it felt were deficient. I will deal with all three. First, that there was a gap between the Police report being filed on 30 October 2016 and the Police looking at the items, on 3 December 2016. The scene should have been visited by the Police close to the time of the Police report. This was a lapse, which affected some, but not all, of the items in the charges. In terms of the acquittal, the High Court also acquitted Ms Liyani in respect of the items not affected by the break in the chain. So, the break in itself may not have affected the outcome given the High Court's reasoning. However, there can be no excuse for this lapse on the part of the Police officer. It is a breach of a legal requirement; it is also a breach of Police protocol, both of which require the Police to respond to a crime scene promptly, or as soon as practicable. The broader objective of these requirements is to ensure the integrity of relevant evidence by securing it into Police custody or otherwise obtaining a proper record of it. Whether there has to be a seizure in any specific case must depend on the facts of the case, the nature of the exhibits and evidence. However, even if there is no seizure, it is necessary to obtain a proper record of the evidence, such as by careful photography of the items. In this case, careful photography, soon after the Police report was filed, may have been good enough. But that was not done.”