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 65 of 92.
“Where it is a very substantive event, it is only fair that the event organiser pays a part of the cost for additional security measures that have to be implemented because of the expected crowd size, such as bag checking, barricades and so on. It is unfair to expect the general average citizen of Singapore to pay for every event 100% of the cost. The citizens of Singapore are paying a very substantial part of the cost anyway. Mr Melvin Yong asked about the need to ensure that security officers are well-trained to carry out their duties. Licensed security officers will need to be trained before they can carry out specific tasks. For example, how do you do security screening for individuals? How do you use walk-through metal detectors? How do you use hand-held metal detectors? We will require the training to meet the standards of the Singapore WSQ System for Security (Security WSQ), and training providers will need to be accredited. So, this is something that needs to be done. My Ministry is working closely with the security industry. We hope to develop an ITM. What we need to achieve is for the industry to offer high-quality services which offer the right quality and are sustainable from a manpower perspective. We will consider Mr Melvyn Yong's suggestions on PWM and promoting greater use of technology. Greater use of technology is a no-brainer and we will obviously have to work on these things. That was on event security. There is a second part which I said on the amendments which relates to foreigners using Singapore to promote political causes. Here, we have to bear in mind that the Act was first put in place several years ago in 2009.”
“The vast majority of events at the Speakers' Corner will not attract this kind of threshold crowds. Mr Louis Ng asked if organisers may deliberately under-report expected turnout to avoid being declared a "special event". I think I have made it clear: deliberate under-reporting will be an offence, and if the investigations reveal that the organisers planned for a much larger crowd size but failed to notify the Police, that will be an offence. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about the costs involved where the organisers do not implement security and the Police step in to put in those measures. In the end, the Government is incurring the cost on behalf of the taxpayers of Singapore or, in fact, all citizens of Singapore. If the Commissioner or the Police put in those security measures and have to pay for it, then that, as I said, will be recovered as a civil debt. Separately, non-compliance with the Commissioner's directions would be a criminal offence. But really, we do not want to get there. We want events to succeed, we want event organisers to work with the Police and to make sure that it is secure. Everyone will have a great event, with as reasonable a framework as possible, and at as reasonable a cost as possible. Mr Louis Ng asked if grants can be provided for civil society groups to pay for security measures. I have made the point that taxpayers are bearing a huge part of this cost already, in terms of what the Police have to do, in terms of providing for security. This is now time for everyone in society to step up and bear different parts of the cost. So, the question is how much should the taxpayer pay and how much should the event organiser pay?”
“Standing here today, you and I know different events will have different types of security signature. An event relating to a concert will be very different from a public event that, say, intends to deal with issues of race or religion. These are matters that can only be decided based on the nature of the event, based also on international and regional events and surroundings, and then make an assessment, which is why it is difficult to prescribe upfront in the legislation, and which is why discretion has to be given to the Commissioner and the Executive. But the underlying rationale and principle of that particular clause is for the Commissioner to direct taking of specific security steps. It is not to say: do not hold the event. It is to say, "Well, I think this event is going to require barricades, this event is going to require this kind of security, I think you better check the bags". I do not think it can be suggested that that exercise is going to be handled in bad faith. And the Police will give the guidelines to the event organisers on what measures to be implemented, how the framework is to be implemented, and they will give examples, too. What is the "reasonable" expectation of the size of the crowd? It is again a question of fact. I talked about it. You look at past events, similar events, you look at what is the logistical planning for the event, and you look at the venue, as I have said. So, predicting the turnout accurately may be difficult and no one is saying that you have to be accurate, but you are required to make the best efforts to estimate the crowd size. We are all in this situation because of international events. We do not want what happened in Berlin, Nice or Istanbul to happen here, and so, everyone has got to play a part.”
“Mdm Speaker, I wish to thank the Members who have participated in this debate, and I will respond to the points on the amendments as best as I can. Mr Louis Ng asked how organisers would predict the crowd turnout at free, non-ticketed events. When you organise an event, the organisers will plan with a certain turnout in mind, and they will have to notify the Police within the prescribed period and to give their best assessment of what they reasonably expect the crowd turnout to be. We had recognised that this will be a subjective exercise because they will have to plan for the venue, they will have to plan for logistics and, therefore, they will have an idea of what the crowd size will be. If the crowd size has exceeded, but they had exercised due diligence in their assessment, then that will not be an offence, obviously. But a deliberate under-assessment, if that can be shown − of course, it has got to be shown by the prosecution − that is a different matter. So, the example where you expect 4,999, I think all of us have some experience in organising events. I would be surprised if the Police are not surprised that someone comes up and says "I expect 4,999". I think that person can expect a more detailed assessment from the Police. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if the different classes of events we prescribe will be sufficiently clear and distinguished. If I may refer to the specific clause, I think the Member was concerned about clause 3 in the new section 6A, "for the purposes of subsection 1, the Minister may prescribe the number of individuals for different classes of events". I think the concern is, would there be good faith exercised? Really, I would like to say to Members, we are trying to prescribe security for different types of events.”
“In determining whether the proposed assembly or procession is "directed towards a political end", the Commissioner would have to consider if such activities would cover matters, regardless of whether in Singapore or elsewhere, that promote the interests of political parties or a group of persons organised for political objectives, or influencing or seeking to influence policies or decisions of any government, changes in the law, any election or referendum, public opinion on a matter of public controversy, or policies or decisions of persons performing public functions, or to promote or oppose political views or public conduct relating to activities that have become the subject of political debate. These amendments do not impact on Singaporeans. These are directed at foreigners and foreign entities. "Singapore entity" in the Bill includes entities, such as companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which are incorporated or registered in Singapore and controlled by a majority of Singapore Citizens. Singapore Citizens and entities can continue to apply for and be granted permits for assemblies and processions directed towards political ends, as long as none of the other grounds which already exist in the Public Order Act are there. Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, the proposed amendments will seek to enhance the security of events in Singapore against the clear and present threat of terrorism. The Bill also seeks to ensure that Singapore will not be used as a platform by foreigners to further political causes, especially those that are controversial or divisive. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Hopefully, that will help the private security industry meet the demands in the years ahead because you are going to have security officers who need to be professional in handling this. The second part of this Bill relates to the amendment to section 7(2), to prevent foreigners from using Singapore to promote political causes. As to the basic philosophy, there can be no doubt that the Government's position has always been that foreigners and foreign entities should not import their politics into Singapore, nor should they interfere in our domestic politics, especially on issues of a political or controversial nature. The Police have previously rejected permit applications by non-Singaporeans to organise events, for example, the Bersih-related events at the Speakers' Corner. Clause 4 of the Bill clarifies that the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit for a public assembly or procession, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proposed assembly or procession is directed towards a political end, and organised by, or involves the participation of non-Singaporean entities or non-Singapore Citizens. Those events, where a permit is applied for, will be assessed carefully, case-by-case, by the Police.”
“The powers that are exercisable in relation to these events remain largely unchanged. So, we have to demarcate the events which the Minister will declare as special events from those declared by the Commissioner. The Minister will give directions to the Commissioner to refer certain events or a class of similar events to the Minister. And then the Minister will decide whether or not to declare these events. Basically, we are increasing the security requirements for events which attract certain types of crowd more than 5,000 and/or with national or international prominence giving powers for directions. Any declaration made by the Minister must be published in the Gazette because the powers do affect members of the public in and around the vicinity of the special event. My Ministry has consulted key stakeholders. We have consulted the People's Association, Football Association of Singapore and event companies providing entertainment, as well as sporting events, and event security and logistics providers. Based on the feedback we have received, we will develop guidelines for event organisers on what procedures they need to adopt to notify the Police, and also what security measures are required for a typical event, and what sort of additional security measures that might be imposed, depending on the threat assessment and the nature of the event. In doing this, obviously, the private security industry is an important partner to help us implement this framework. We are working with the tripartite partners to develop what is being called the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the Private Security Industry. So, we will focus on innovation, technology and upgrading the jobs and skills of the officers.”
“The Police may also require the organisers to inform the participants, the public at large, regarding some aspects of how the event is going to be conducted, for example, to come earlier because of security screening. Again, not complying with the written directions given under section 30 would be an offence, and the Commissioner is allowed or will be empowered to do what is necessary to give effect to his written directions. And that could include, if the event organisers are not putting in the security, the Police can put in the security. They can also recover the costs and expenses incurred in doing so, as a civil debt owed to the Government. But stepping in to implement the security requirements is really an option of last resort. But it is important to have this option in case you have organisers who just go ahead, ignore everything and have a large-scale event without adequate security. Clause 10 will make it an offence for anyone to willfully obstruct any Police Officer or the Commissioner in the exercise of his powers. Supposing a Commissioner declares an event be a special event, then the powers that are exercisable in relation to the participants and members of the public under sections 24 to 29 and section 32A will not apply. As the participants and members of the public at a special event will not be subject to these powers, the declaration of the special event by the Commissioner does not have to be gazetted. Clause 8 of the Bill will also enact a new section 21A. That is to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to declare some special events as enhanced security special events. Generally, these are events of major national or international significance which have previously been declared as special events under this Act.”
“Once the Commissioner declares an event to be a special event, he will issue directions to the event organisers to put in place the security measures. He will use section 30, which is an existing provision that applies to special events. Currently, the Minister declares them to be special events under section 30, but he will use the powers under section 30. Clause 9 of the Bill will amend section 30 to clarify examples of written directions that the Commissioner can give. How will this work in practice? Let us say an event has been declared a special event or enhanced security special event. The Police will then discuss the security plan with the organisers. The Police will then issue directions to the event organisers to put in place the agreed or hopefully agreed security measures, which could include setting up of barricades, engaging security officers by having clear signage. And that is likely to apply to the majority of special events which are events which attract large crowds. For some events which are likely to be at a higher risk of a terror attack or a public order incident, the Police could direct additional measures, like armed Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs), full body scans, bag checks and measures against vehicle-borne threats. And you have seen how vehicle-borne threats can cause chaos. If for some reason that event venue cannot be secured against security risks, the Police may require the venue to be changed. And that has happened in the past. The event may be cancelled or postponed if it is unsafe for it to continue. That could be due to an imminent threat or severely inadequate security and also inadequate crowd management arrangements.”
“So, clause 3 will actually require the Commissioner to accept shorter notice, if he is reasonably satisfied that an earlier notice could not have been given. If you do not notify the Police, that would be an offence. So, there is a legal requirement to notify the Police when you reasonably expect the crowd size to be beyond 5,000 for a public event. There is also the power to declare an event as a special event by the Commissioner of Police. Clause 8 of the Bill will repeal and re-enact section 21. When will the Commissioner exercise this power? When it is necessary to preserve the public order and the safety of individuals involved in the event, as well as other persons, and also where it is necessary to avoid disruptions to the event. What would the Commissioner have to consider in declaring events as a special event? He has got to look at the size of the event. He has got to look at the experience and expertise of the organisers and he has got to look at the other factors, including threat assessment. In practice, how is the Commissioner likely to exercise this power? I think he will exercise this power when an event is likely to attract a very large crowd and he assesses it to be at a higher risk of a terror attack or a public order incident. Some of these events, based on past precedent, could include, say, large-scale sporting events like the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon, music concerts and celebrations like the Chinese New Year Countdown or the Marina Bay Singapore Countdown. These are iconic events that can be targets. High-profile events like the Shangri-La Dialogue or National Day Rally will also be declared as special events.”
“Take into consideration, first, the seating capacity of major event venues in Singapore and also looking at the scheduled landscape of events that we have in Singapore. What is this likely to cover? If you look at the Singapore Indoor Stadium, it can hold 7,000 to 8,000 people when used for concerts. The Star Performing Arts Centre can accommodate up to 5,000 people. How many events would this apply to, based on past precedents? I think about 200 public events. So, we have taken a measured approach. And remember these 200 public events today have already put in place many of these security measures. What is being done is to give the Police the directive power. What we have today is a system where the Police work with the organisers and the organisers voluntarily do this. The Bill will effectively give the Police the power to direct. And we want to encourage people to organise events. We do not want to stifle the vibrancy of events being held in Singapore. We do not want to discourage people. At the same time, we have to recognise that the worldwide impact of terrorism is imposing costs on everyone. Based on the type of events and the threshold of crowds, I talked about the Police having to be told a certain period beforehand, we intend it to be 28 days before the event. That gives enough time for the Police to make an assessment, engage with the organisers on the security requirements and for the organisers to put in place the security requirements. Because the Police have to make an assessment, then they have got to go back to the organisers and say "we need you to do these things", and the organisers need time to go and put in place those requirements. But, sometimes, it is not possible to give such notice.”
“There will a period prescribed and a notification has got to take place in the context of the prescribed period. Events that meet the crowd size thresholds will then be declared as special events. In making the declaration, the Police will assess if the event is at potential risk of a terrorist attack or a public order incident. What types of events do we intend to prescribe once the Bill comes into force? For public events, if we expect more than 5,000 persons at any time, and public events refer to events where any member of the public can attend, either by purchasing tickets or by freely entering the event area. For private events, if we expect more than 10,000 persons at any time. Private events are events by invitation only. The reason for making a distinction between public and private events is that one assumes that, for a private event, the organisers know who they are inviting. And because it is by invitation only, then there is no wide public invitation and, therefore, potentially lesser profile. But, of course, I am just setting the general principles. The specific cases will vary and the Commissioner will have to make that assessment. How does one estimate crowd size? I think the event organisers would try to make an estimate based on the facts available to them, such as the size of the venue, past events of a similar nature, ticket sales and so on. The organiser makes the best estimate he or she can. And if the crowd size exceeds what they estimated, then, of course, that is not an offence. How did we come to these thresholds? They were based on risk assessment. Why 5,000? Why not 4,000? Why not 6,000? We have got to draw a line somewhere.”
“But I think the time has come for us to go beyond that to give the Police the powers to require such measures. When you have events with large crowds, higher risk, there has got to be adequate security, and there has got to be legal powers for the Police to direct that some security measures be put in that are considered adequate. What is the approach we are going to take? First, we will require organisers of events where you expect beyond a certain crowd, beyond a certain size, to inform the Police in advance that you are expecting this sort of crowd. Second, after the Police's assessment, the Police will then declare events with certain large crowds, or assessed to be at higher risk, as special events. The Commissioner of Police will decide this. And the Police can then direct that the event organisers take special steps, security measures. Of course, if the event organiser refuses to comply with the directions of the Police, then it has to be a non-compliance with the law. The Bill also provides for that. The intent of this framework which I have just explained − notifying the Police, allowing the Police to give directions, and making non-compliance an offence − is to make sure that the basic security measures are in place, and also allow the Police to direct further security measures, for example, if there is credible or a reasonable basis to believe that there are specific or generalised threats. These are assessments that the Police have to make. Now, let me deal with the main provisions of this Bill. Members will note from clause 3 of the Bill, it requires organisers to give the Police notice of intention if they expect the crowd size to be above a prescribed size.”
“The Police require a wide range of powers to ensure event security to protect the public, in events of such significance. Those powers include the power to inspect personal property, search people, prohibit certain items from being taken into the event area, security screening, refusing entry into special events and also issuing directions to event organisers. But we know, today's threats are not limited to these sorts of events. From my earlier illustrations, you have seen they attack concerts, they attack festivals, any kind of gathering. At the same time, we cannot subject all these events to the kind of security or rules that we require, say, for the National Day Parade. So, it is a balance. You cannot let it go completely unprotected nor can you impose the kind of security that you do for the kind of events I have talked about. When we strike a balance, we must remember and accept that when you put in security measures, they do deter attackers. For example, in November 2015, the terrorists wanted to go into the stadium. But they were deterred because there were security checks, so they detonated outside and that caused much less loss of lives. After the attacks in Berlin and Nice, questions were raised as to why there were no higher security measures. In Singapore, in February this year, we had the Guns N' Roses concert at the Changi Exhibition Centre reputed to have 50,000 people. Concerns have been raised as to why there were no added security measures as this is the kind of events that can be targeted. So, what are the gaps today and how do we deal with them? What the Police do today is to work with event organisers to voluntarily put in the security measures and most organisers are cooperative.”
“I have indicated that they are trained to be at any place in Singapore within a certain number of minutes and they understand the local terrain very well, including the buildings. We have also conducted major exercises to see what the gaps are and continuously upgrade and sharpen our skills. In addition, we have also launched the SGSecure movement to bring in the population, and our intention is the entire population has got to come into this and work with the Government in a partnership. The fact is that terrorists have imposed a cost on society. And the Government and the taxpayers are paying the cost. At the same time, business owners, event organisers will have to bear a part of this cost. That is what the first part is about. Not all of it, but a part of it. So, why do we have to regulate security for events? When there is a risk of a potential terrorist attack at an event, and the risk is assessable as potentially dangerous, then it is really in the public interest that the Government does something about it, that the necessary security measures are taken. Otherwise, we are putting lives at risk. The practical issue then becomes one of balancing. What measures do we put in, where do we draw the line, and how do we calibrate so that the measures are reasonable and practicable? Today, as it stands now before the amendment, section 21 of the Act allows the Minister for Home Affairs to designate special events. This is done to ensure the safety and security of the event, and to avoid disruptions to the event. These are usually events of major and national significance. To give some examples, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 2009 meetings in Singapore, Southeast Asian Games Opening and Closing Ceremonies, National Day Parade, events like that.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mdm Speaker, there are two major parts to this amendment Bill. The first is to protect the public from the growing threat of terrorist actions to events that take place in Singapore. The second is to re-emphasise and make clear what has always been our position, that permits may be refused for assemblies and processions where non-Singaporeans and non-Singaporean entities get involved towards political ends. Let me look at the first part in relation to specific terrorist threats. Members will be aware of the threat of terrorism around the world and in Singapore. The region has been hit several times. We have been targeted. We increasingly see a modus operandi where terrorists target soft targets as one of the main modes of attack. These are large events with large crowds with limited protection, or public buildings which are less secure. You have seen that over the past two years. You had in November 2015 the attack in Paris where they attacked a cafe, football match and concert. Ninety people died. In June of last year, you had the attack in Nice. More than 80 people died. A truck was driven into the crowds. In December of last year, you have the Christmas Market attack in Germany. Twelve persons dead in Berlin. Of course, you have the New Year's Eve shooting at an Istanbul nightclub, with 39 persons dead. Nightclubs, public events, cafes, football events and so on. In terms of how the Government has responded, we have taken significant steps. I call that the kinetic response. We have put in more cameras, increased vigilance with technology. We have new capabilities with the Emergency Response Teams.”
“I thank the Member for the points he made. I will distinguish between three types of situations. First, genuine feedback. It could be in error where the person could have made a mistake, but genuine, well-intentioned feedback or complaints because there is a difference of viewpoints, allegations based on an honest belief in certain facts. That is one category. That is understandable. Generally, there should be no consequences for that. The second category where the complaint is justified, feedback is justified, and we must take action. The third category is what the Member is focused on, which is, false, deliberate, malicious allegations. We are not talking about errors, we are talking about deliberate falsehoods, malice. I agree with the Member, it has to be taken seriously, and I think the time has come for us not to simply rebut but to actually actively deal with it, so that the people who seek to profit from such conduct will actually feel the pain of it. We are looking at it and something will be done.”
“We are considering the adequacy of our laws to ensure sufficient protection against unfounded attacks on the reputation and integrity of our public institutions, like the Police. Do not get me wrong. It is not to say that the Police do not make mistakes. It is not to say that some policemen do not commit offences. They do; they are also human. Therefore, there can be no objection to comments, feedback, fair criticism, complaints. And all of them will be looked at. This is Singapore. You read of Police Officers, other public servants, being charged in Court where criminal action is warranted and they face the consequences. That is why people have faith in the system. It will not be covered up. What is objectionable are deliberate falsehoods. If there is no wrongdoing or misconduct and you deliberately accuse, to pull down the institution by manufacturing lies, and if public trust in Police is eroded and you can no longer enforce the rule of law effectively, all of us will be the worse for it. So, we have to take the question of fake news about Police and other agencies seriously and deal with it.”
“I thank the Member for asking this question. Madam, my Ministry takes a serious view of false and malicious allegations against the Police. I refer Members to a recent Public Perception Survey where 91% of Singaporeans had said that Police had demonstrated the core values of courage, loyalty, integrity and fairness when interacting with them. We will always have some people who are not happy but 91% said this. Over the years, through the consistent upholding and exemplification of these values, the Police have built an enormous reservoir of trust and confidence with the public. That is a huge benefit, not just to the Police but also to Singaporeans as a whole. Whenever any allegation is received, the first task of the Police is to investigate the allegation quite carefully and thoroughly. If the conclusion of the investigation is that the allegation is false or unwarranted, then the first thing the Police will do after making an assessment, if necessary, is to issue a public response to say that this is untrue. They will correct and rebut the falsehoods. For example, The Online Citizen (TOC) glorifies in running the Police down with a series of untrue stories. I referred to some stories last year on their untruths. In a recent case, TOC alleged that Police officers had accused a wheelchair-bound man of motorcycle theft. It was designed to make people angry: falsehood. The Police corrected the allegation within a day. The man was never accused of being involved in any motor vehicle theft, nor was he asked to provide any statement at a Police station. The Member has asked what actions the Police can take.”
“Specifically for the vulnerable victims and the children. We will do an internal review. We have started that for some time now. I certainly intend that there will be public consultation for many of the Penal Code types of changes that they are thinking of. I do not want to commit my officials before we have crossed the bridge, but public consultation is something that we do quite frequently when it comes to these sorts of laws. If we do not do it, we will explain in Parliament why. But I think it is likely that we will do it.”
“Before that we are undertaking a review of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). We would be looking at many of these issues. I am not going to comment as to whether we will specifically be looking at the mentally disabled. But I think Members can assume that we are doing quite a comprehensive review.”
“How that is to be arrived at, like I said, whether you have to necessarily legislate or you have to relook at some of the processes, policies, that is something that is part of the review. Speaking personally, I think they need to be stiffened.”
“Ms Tin is asking me to prejudge the review before the review takes place. There would not be a review asked if we felt that everything was okay as it is. But I should not jump in and say it is definitely going to go in a certain direction because, as I had said, we need to look at it. Perhaps, in some situations, the laws may be adequate but some processes, in terms of which charges to prefer or which charges to look at, that is not within the control of the Government. Which charges to prefer and how to proceed is an independent decision by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). But as a matter of policy, we may need to have discussions with AGC without having to deal with individual cases. And there may be areas where there may be a lacuna as well. We expect the review to be completed before the end of the year. I speak personally here, without having to prejudge the issue. I think that, in two areas, in the context of vulnerable victims, very young children who are subjected to sexual abuse, who are preyed upon, or who otherwise would have had. And there is a separate class of vulnerable victims, and by no means is this comprehensive; domestic helpers. They are human beings. They come here and do the work because we do not have enough people. But they have to be treated with a certain dignity and a certain respect for the law. They are not slaves. And if they are ill-treated to the extent where they suffer physical and mental torture, I think we also look at that. The laws already provide for punishments to be enhanced in the context of some vulnerable victims. So, we have to look at this. My own personal view is that there is certainly a reasonable basis for taking the view that the punishments have to be stiffer.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working with other Ministries to review the laws relating to child pornography and sexual offences committed on minors, including whether the sentences need to be enhanced or whether even new laws need to be drafted. We have started the review, covering whether existing approaches need to be looked at or whether additional laws need to be put in or whether punishments need to be enhanced. It is quite a comprehensive review looking at the situation of minors and we will make an announcement when the review is completed.”
“Madam, can I take Question Nos 7 and 8, together?”
“Hoaxes like these, articles like these, can have real-world consequences, if not quickly corrected. They can cause harm to Singaporeans, alarm to the public, emergency resources will have to be diverted, and the reputation of businesses and people can be completely, unreasonably, unfairly damaged. All because some nasty people seek to profit from this. As I said, there is a much more serious dimension to all of this because fake news today, we must assume, can be used as an offensive weapon by foreign agencies and foreign countries. We have already seen examples of that − to get into your public's mind, to destabilise your public, to psychologically weaken them and impact your agencies. That is a very serious threat and it will be naive for us to believe that governments or state agencies do not engage in this. There is enough evidence that they do. Under our current law, there are limited remedies to deal with these falsehoods. For example, it is an offence under the Telecommunications Act to transmit a message knowing that it is false. But these remedies are ineffective; they were really looking at a time before the new age as it were. The circulation of falsehoods can go viral very quickly today. So, we need to do more. The Government is seriously considering how to address this fake news issue. We will announce our position once we have completed our review.”
“It was an attempt to paint him as an unpopular President. As I said, it has not reached the levels of what is happening elsewhere, but this is an example. There is a table that we have prepared which sets out some of the falsehoods from the "States Times Review" and my Ministry will load that together with my answer to the Parliamentary Question on our website. Even when the articles are not totally fake, they are highly misleading, and the whole purpose is to purvey falsehoods and mislead the public. We have incidents of online hoaxes going viral in Singapore. In November last year, "All Singapore Stuff" published a letter supposed to have been written by someone called "Fernandez" with the headline, "Singapore new citizen feels cheated, now wants his old citizenship back". The headline was accompanied by a completely unrelated photograph of an innocent Singaporean, Mr Prakash Hetamsaria. You can imagine what happened. Mr Hetamsaria was subjected to online abuse and xenophobic racist comments. They enjoy this, "All Singapore Stuff". Truth is completely irrelevant. Another article, again in November 2016 last year, again in "All Singapore Stuff", said the rooftop of Punggol Waterway Terraces had collapsed. I think Members would remember this. The Police and Singapore Civil Defence Force had to be mobilised and deployed to investigate the claim. Taxpayers pay the cost for all of this. Another anonymous post widely circulated on social media falsely claimed that a childcare centre at River Valley Road made their children sleep on the floor and eat rotten fruits, suggesting child neglect. Of course, there was a public outcry, but you can imagine the impact on the childcare operator.”
“It has not had that much of an impact yet, but you can predict that the same sequence of actors, foreign countries, foreign agencies, people sitting outside of Singapore using it to either destabilise our society or not caring whether it destabilises but doing it to make a lot of money. Both are problematic. One example of a site that regularly purveyed fake news was, of course, "The Real Singapore". It generated fake news for profit. It is impossible to list all the fake news they published but I can give some examples. In 2015, Thaipusam, it claimed that there was a commotion between the Police and participants, and that this was sparked off by a complaint by a Filipino family. There was no such complaint. One of the editors altered an article from a reader and then inserted falsehoods into the article and passed it off as facts. One of the editors was also charged for writing another false article, on puppy mills, which she passed off as being written by a Malay Singaporean. "The Real Singapore" owners made more than $500,000 in advertising revenues by publishing these completely false articles. Yang Kaiheng, one of the owners who went to jail, boasted about earning $4,000 to $5,000 a month. Easy money! Evidence showed that the couple had paid off most of their A$190,000 (S$191,768) 30-year home loan in just 11 months. So, it is very attractive. "The Real Singapore" has ceased operations, but one of its former editors and co-founder, Alex Tan Zhixiang, has since registered another website called the "States Times Review" which continues to publish completely false, fake news from outside Singapore. Last August, it claimed that there was near-zero turnout for the late former President SR Nathan's funeral, and that kindergarten children were forced to attend.”
“Again, there are suggestions that many of the fake news stories during the US elections were created by teenagers from a small town in Macedonia. They had no interest in the US elections. They were driven solely by money. Of course, countries may well be involved as well, organised to attack and destabilise other countries during elections, and at other times. The whole idea is to spread sensational news, sensational headlines, influence the population, and arrive at the outcome that is wanted by a certain country outside. Often also it makes money, because the more people access their fake news, the more advertising revenue the originators earn. It is really easy money for the fake news factories. Many countries have called for a tough stance to be taken against fake news, including the US, the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany, or to put in place more effective measures to counter fake news. Germany, for example, is considering a draft law that will require social networks, websites, including Facebook, to remove fake news which amounts to illegal content from their platforms. So, make the network itself responsible. Social networks which fail to comply with such a request could face very stiff fines. In Germany, it is being suggested that they will face fines of up to €50 million, which is a lot of money, under the draft legislation. The UK has also been reported to have launched a parliamentary probe into fake news, calling it a threat to democracy. Fake news has been a problem in Singapore, not quite at the level that I have listed in other countries, but we see the phenomenon.”
“I thank the hon Members for raising this. Fake news is a global phenomenon and it can result in serious consequences for individuals and society. Fake news can be circulated easily, speedily, widely on social media. Therefore, the circulation of fake news has to be taken seriously. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with quickly. To put it in perspective, we are not talking about trivial factual inaccuracies, but falsehoods that can cause real harm. If you look internationally, one fake news story last year claimed that Mrs Hillary Clinton was running a paedophilia ring operating out of a pizza restaurant. People believed it. One man turned up with an assault rifle and opened fire in the restaurant. Commentators have generally concluded that fake news can also be used as a powerful tool to interfere in domestic politics and domestic affairs. For example, before the United States (US) presidential elections, there were several fake news stories, huge numbers, claiming that Mrs Clinton sold weapons to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Before the "Brexit" referendum, misleading stories were published to fuel xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. News articles published by foreign-controlled websites were said to be skewed and intended to influence a crucial referendum in Italy last year. These are not isolated incidents and countries are beginning to grapple with them. Media reports have suggested that there were serious attempts to influence the US presidential elections, and perhaps they indeed were influenced, such as the "Brexit" referendum, the referendum in Italy, and there are attempts to influence the upcoming elections in Germany and France as well.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 5 and 6 together?”
“You can see that the legal institutions in Singapore since Independence, whether it is Judiciary, AGC, the Legal Service, the Bar − we are one of the few countries that has made these institutions much better than from when we took over from the British, compared to all the other countries that the Member referred to. This is a Government that builds up institutions, not pulls them down. Third − should the Deputy AG disqualify himself? There are clear rules on when lawyers should recuse themselves from particular matters and I am sure every lawyer in AGC is aware of the laws relating to recusal.”
“Is he the most eminently qualified for this position? What I can say is that there are six to seven people who are considered outstanding litigators. He is one of those six to seven. I do not know whether the Member will be more comfortable with Mr Davinder Singh or Mr Alvin Yeo. It is a fact that the PAP gets the best lawyers on its side. Some of us come into Government, some of us go into − when I say "us", I mean litigators − the Bench, and some litigators do other kinds of public service. And Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah made the point that a couple in this top six, seven have previously indicated that they would prefer not to come into the Public Service. I do not think it is appropriate to go beyond that. He is eminently qualified, there is no question of his abilities; you do not question his abilities. The real issue is: is there something systemically wrong? Ms Sylvia Lim waxed lyrical about the appointment process in the US, and Jeff Sessions. And they have a system where a sitting Republican Senator transfers over and becomes AG, absolutely no problems. So, I would say I do not see any issue with someone who has had a link in the past, for the very sound reasons that Ms Indranee Rajah has given. Second, wide discretion, but in matters that go to Court, ultimately, the Court decides. If exercise of discretion is required, of course, AGC decides − AG, Deputy AG, Solicitor-General – based on a variety of factors, and that is why you choose people of character and competence.”
“They really have to keep up with the developments in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and beyond and strive to understand the regional market and distinguish themselves by the quality of their work and their business acumen because a fair part of the law is becoming commoditised through technology. Together we can ensure that our legal industry remains vibrant and competitive in the years ahead.”
“Ms Rahayu asked about the study my Ministry did with the Law Society to identify the technology and capability needs of small and medium SLPs. The study identified technology adoption as a key area of development for SLPs. The larger firms are able to invest in money, but I think the smaller firms have challenges in keeping up, making the investments, with rapidly-changing technological advancements. We have worked with the Law Society and SPRING, and we have kick-started the adoption of technology by SLPs. Earlier this week, we launched the "Tech Start for Law" programme. This will provide SLPs with support of up to 70% of the cost to adopt basic technology products for practice management, online legal research and online marketing. We really hope that SLPs will take advantage of it. My Ministry will go out with the message as aggressively as possible. Other than legal technology adoption, my Ministry is also working with the Academy of Law, the Law Society, the Courts and a number of economic agencies on several other aspects relating to technology. For example, we want to develop an ecosystem to accelerate the creation and adoption of legal technology. We want to study the feasibility of online dispute resolution and setting up such platforms. In addition, we will also review our regulations to ensure that the regulations facilitate innovation and the development of legal technology solutions. I have outlined some of the ways in which my Ministry is working to support the legal industry. We will provide the necessary partnership, framework, support and incentives. The legal profession and the private sector have to come into that partnership, embrace the changes, grasp the opportunities, some of which are disruptive.”
“It allows our law firms to deduct the expenses for overseas business development and investment study trips against taxable income. My Ministry will continue working with the relevant economic agencies to support SLPs in their growth plans and regionalisation efforts because we have to look outside Singapore. We are also looking to establish ourselves as a centre for international debt restructuring in Asia. We are well-positioned to do that because we are a major financial, legal and business hub. We have the expertise, efficiency and legal framework. We can facilitate complex cross-border restructuring. My Ministry has, therefore, worked with the Ministry of Finance on the Companies (Amendment) Bill, and that will enhance Singapore's debt restructuring processes. We are also working with parties from the public and private sectors to promote our debt restructuring regime, attract other influential players to base themselves in Singapore and develop multidisciplinary training and education for professionals in the industry. Beyond dispute resolution and restructuring, we are looking to develop and grow new practice areas. More will be shared when the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) Working Group on Legal and Accounting Services releases its report in April. We will also continue to develop intellectual property (IP) as a growth area. It is important that the IP regime allows businesses to develop and commercialise IP in a cost-effective way. We are considering ways to improve our IP dispute resolution mechanism and we are considering the recommendations made by the IP Dispute Resolution Committee. Finally, we will also support SLPs on technology.”
“This will increase the capacity at Maxwell Chambers and we can have more hearings there. It will also help attract more international institutions, arbitration chambers and law firms to do that kind of work in Singapore. Second, on the promotion and use of Singapore law. Our legal sector can benefit from the promotion of Singapore in the region. Today, we do see an increasing use of Singapore law in cross-border transactions in this region. Singapore law is one of the default options in some Baltic and International Maritime Council standard forms. Growth in this trend must come from businesses, led by parties and industries. They will benefit from an emergence of a default Asian law. My Ministry has also financially supported the development of centres of excellence as an added factor specialising in a number of areas, including regional law. To name a few: the Centre for Asian Legal Studies, the Centre for Banking and Finance Law and the Centre for Law and Business. These institutions will help to grow Singapore's reputation as a thought leader in the law, anchor regional legal expertise in Singapore and strengthen the recognition and use of Singapore law. Ms Rahayu asked if Singapore Law Practices (SLPs) could be made aware of emerging markets and the concrete steps SLPs can take to be part of those markets. There are a number of schemes available to assist SLPs in regionalisation, for example, Enterprise Singapore's (IE's) Global Company Partnership scheme. It provides support, including financial support, to Singapore law firms to build market expertise via secondments to other places. IE also has a Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation.”
“Mdm Chair, I thank the Members who spoke. Fundamentally, in the areas of law and justice, we rank well because of our strong societal and institutional foundations. In terms of commitment to the rule of law, we are number one in Asia, as ranked by the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index 2016 and the Asian Intelligence Report's Corruption Perception Index 2017. With that as the background, let me now speak about the legal sector. Like many other sectors, the legal sector faces some challenges. I will touch on what we are doing to make Singapore a leading legal hub and to support the legal industry. First, on strengthening our status as a dispute resolution hub. I thank Mr de Souza for noting the many good initiatives that really enhance our reputation and standing as a dispute resolution hub. Over the years, we have systematically built up our dispute resolution capabilities. We are now among the top five most preferred seats of arbitration in the world. We have well-regarded institutions which offer a suite of top-quality dispute resolution services, such as SIAC, SIMC and SICC. Over the past year, we have further strengthened our position. We have ratified the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. This enhances the enforceability of Singapore Court judgments. We have enacted a new Mediation Act to strengthen the enforceability of mediated settlements. And we have introduced a third-party funding framework to give businesses additional financing options for international commercial arbitration. We are also continuing to grow dispute resolution activities in Singapore. We are renovating and refurbishing the Red Dot Traffic Building and expanding the premises of Maxwell Chambers.”
“Thank you. That is the question the Police will be considering.”
“That is not the question I asked, and I did not refer to the Quran. Do you think it is alright for someone to refer to any holy text to encourage violence, either by quoting directly or speaking, encouraging such violence? Yes or no?”
“Can I ask the Member whether he thinks that it is alright to quote from a text and encourage violence against others? Can I have a direct answer, please?”
“You mean whether it will move from pre-recorded to real-time monitoring? Yes, we already have real-time monitoring capabilities. We intend to go further and enhance these with video analytics capabilities, because we do not have the number of officers to watch all the thousands of screens. So, for an effective system, what you need is a surveillance of the risk areas and artificial intelligence which then analyses it in real-time. This will allow the Police to form an assessment of an incident and react effectively in real-time. In fact, you will want to go further to use big data to conduct predictive analysis, so that you can intervene even before something happens. These are all in the works. But real-time monitoring is taking place already.”
“This will depend on the operational needs. For now, we are looking at our own officers.”
“The Police will interact and speak with a wide variety of people in coming to their conclusion. Ultimately, the Police will be guided by advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers, taking into account the facts, the videos which are available and a proper translation of what was said. Everything will be looked into.”
“We will continue to work with our partners, at regional and international platforms, to safeguard our position.”
“This lucrative black market has attracted criminal syndicates from Africa, Iran, South Asia, Mexico and, of course, China. Singapore will be overrun by these syndicates, if we do not take a tough approach. Our neighbours share our concerns. They, too, want to be drug-free. Their challenges are somewhat different. We will continue to partner them as we work towards a united position in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The second challenge is that the number of new drug abusers in Singapore has increased. Close to two-thirds of new abusers in 2016 were under the age of 30. A survey conducted by the National Council Against Drug Abuse in 2016 found that young people below the age of 30 were more open-minded towards drugs, as compared to a similar 2013 survey. This is a worrying trend. Dr Tan Wu Meng also raised similar concerns. This problem is compounded by the rise in online drug availability. Online black market sites allow users to buy drugs anonymously. Drugs are couriered in small parcels, unmarked, innocuous-looking and difficult to track. The young are especially susceptible. Many of us may think that only young people from low-income households are vulnerable. But the Task Force on Youths and Drugs commissioned a study in 2014. It found that most young cannabis abusers come from either middle or high socio-economic backgrounds. Many of them did well in school. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) will take active measures, together with our community partners, to tackle this concern. My Parliamentary Secretary will elaborate on this. Third, there is increasing international pressure to adopt a softer "harm reduction" approach. We have to remain steadfast in our resolve to keep Singapore drug-free.”
“Apart from our size, none of the other factors happen by themselves. They are the result of our policies and many years of hard work. There is strong public support, both for our tough laws and our approach. Singapore's example demonstrates that the vision of a drug-resistant society is not impossible with the right policies properly executed. The same Economist article referred to me as "Singapore's Fearsome Law and Home Affairs Minister" and it quoted my speech at the 2016 UN General Assembly, where I said, "Show us a model that works better, that delivers a better outcome for citizens and we will consider changing. If that cannot be done, then don't ask us to change." I do not accept the description "fearsome". But I will not flinch from taking a position in Singapore and outside Singapore that I believe is in the interest of our people. In this context, let me also put to rest one other myth. Recently, there have been some suggestions that international pressure will cause us to deviate from our policies. And the death penalty was referred to in that context. Such suggestions are delusional. We do what is right for Singapore. A penalty will be in the books if we believe it to be right, and it will be removed if we believe that removal is the right thing to do, and not because of any international pressure. The challenge of keeping Singapore drug-free is increasing. First, there are growing threats from the region. Southeast Asia continues to be a major market and producer of illicit drugs. Myanmar and Lao PDR account for 22% of the total global area used for illicit opium poppy cultivation. The trafficking of ice and heroin in the region generates over US$32 billion.”
“In 2015, more than 33,000 people died from opioid abuse and that does not include the number who died due to gun-related violence but linked to drugs. The 33,000 figure is higher than the number killed due to pure gun homicide. Babies are now being born with drug dependency. Entire neighbourhoods are affected and there is little hope for young people in these neighbourhoods. 3.00 pm The article told the story of a young 24-year-old girl who was doing well in school. Unfortunately, she developed anorexia. That led to alcohol, then drugs. She got addicted, went in and out of rehabilitation eight times, still unsuccessful. And to pay for her drugs, she lied to her family, pawned her mother's jewellery and went into prostitution. Countless others die, either through drugs or through drug-related violence. There are hundreds of thousands of such examples across the world. Singapore is one of the few countries in the world that has dealt effectively with the drug problem. Our approach − we have a tough legal framework against traffickers and abusers. We are firm and relentless in enforcement. We carry out intensive efforts to educate Singaporeans on the dangers of drug abuse, and all this is complemented by comprehensive rehabilitation measures. The Economist ran a major article in January this year. It said that Asia's harsh anti-drug policies are falling out of step with the rest of the world. It criticised these policies as needlessly severe and probably ineffective. Yet, it had to concede that Singapore's drug consumption is admirably low. It caveated that by saying that this is because we are small, have secure borders, little corruption, effective anti-drug education and laws that allow searches without warrants and detention without trial.”
“CRX will involve C2E committee members, IRCC representatives and other community stakeholders in the neighbourhood, such as schools and merchant associations. They will work together in a simulated attack scenario to assist the community after an attack and to manage potential communal tensions and restore social cohesion. Second, our Home Team psychologists will partner the People's Association. Together with psychologists from the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), they will support and train grassroots leaders to provide swift and effective psychological first aid to affected residents after an attack. Mdm Chair, Mr Desmond Choo asked how NSmen can contribute to the Home Team's efforts beyond their NS call-up. Our NSmen play an important role in SGSecure and they can be active responders in emergencies, whether on or off their NS duties. Some of our NSmen have also stepped forward to mobilise their communities, for example, SCDF NS Commander Lieutenant-Colonel (LTC) (NS) Raizan bin Abdul Razak. He works with his local grassroots at Tampines West to raise awareness of the terrorism threat and rallies fellow SCDF NSmen to promote SGSecure in their neighbourhoods and social circles. We celebrate Home Team NS50 this year. A series of events and initiatives that have been lined up to recognise the importance of contributions of our NSmen made towards nation-building. We will continue to count on them also in the fight against terrorism. Mdm Chair, I will now turn to the threat of drugs. The New York Times ran an article in January this year on what it called the "Killer Drug Epidemic" in the US. Across the US, cheap smuggled heroin is "handed out like candy".”
“To achieve this, we have embarked on an extensive outreach effort. Mr Patrick Tay, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked for an update. Our Home Team officers, NSmen, volunteers and grassroots leaders have been conducting house visits. During these visits, they explain to residents how they should respond in the event of an attack and encourage residents to participate in SGSecure programmes. We will push ahead with our efforts in 2017. We also launched the "SGSecure in the Neighbourhood" programme. We revamped the Emergency Preparedness (EP) Day in 2016. Residents learn skills, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid. Live exercises sensitise residents to the threat of attacks and train their responses. We will roll it out across all 89 constituencies over the next two years. We will expand our outreach efforts to workplaces in 2017. We will train public officers in SGSecure skills. We will partner the Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore Business Federation to engage unions and businesses. We will have SGSecure briefings and conferences, customised EP Days; and CT seminars for industries, such as the security, manufacturing and hospitality sectors. We urge companies to come forward and join us. This year, we will also focus on strengthening community cohesion and resilience. We need to make sure our community comes together as one united people after an attack. Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about how we can improve the training of our community leaders to respond after an attack. We have begun to pilot the Crisis Response Exercises (CRX) within the constituencies.”