Rahayu Mahzam
Singapore
“We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers.”
“So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and if all else fails, there is MediFund.”
“Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes.”
“It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is that it is a knot that we need to untangle; and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.”
“I appreciate the Member's feedback. As I said earlier, this is something that we will continue to consider. But we do also have to appreciate that the information that we get is live, in terms of waiting times and all that.”
“But I do take the point and we are actually reviewing to see what is a meaningful way to put out this information so that the public can understand, so that we can all track properly whether the good health outcomes are a result of the efforts that we are making. I will take the feedback back and we will continue to review this.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,289 lines we hold for Rahayu Mahzam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 26.
“At the national level, HPB's "It's OKAY to Reach Out" campaign and NCSS' Beyond the Label movement, aim to normalise conversations around mental health and encourage help-seeking. These efforts are sustained through social media outreach and online portals. In a post-campaign survey of 800 youths, HPB found that 78% of respondents were motivated to reach out for emotional support when they needed it. HPB's MindSG offers mental health resources, curated by professionals, including tools for users to assess their mental health risks and search for support or services, based on their needs. As of 31 December 2023, the portal has garnered more than four million page views, from over two million users since its launch in November 2021. The portal will be enhanced, progressively, to introduce more topics and features. In schools, HPB offers training for students going through critical transition years, specifically from Primary 6 to Secondary 1. These programmes are carried out in partnership with schools, to equip students with skills to better cope through these transitions. Additionally, in 2023, HPB has trained more than 2,200 students from IHLs as peer supporters, equipping them with empathetic listening and basic mental health first-aid skills. At workplaces, HPB trains management staff and conducts workshops to enable people to better cope at work and support their colleagues. In 2023, more than 55,000 working adults have benefitted from HPB's mental wellness programmes. Besides HPB-led initiatives, the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council also launched the "Take Time to Take Care" campaign, to remind employees to look after their own and their colleagues' well-being.”
“Right-siting of care to the community is part of a much larger shift of mental health care. Countries, like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom (UK), have implemented a similar model for their mental health care systems. Although more research studies are still being done, existing studies suggest that a tiered model of mental health care delivery, where mental health care can be easily accessible in community settings, is a better approach compared to concentrating services in the hospital settings. The Senior Minister of State for Health will speak more on our tiered care model later. For the tiered care model to be effective, we also need to encourage the right mindsets, allocate resources and build support within the community to empower people. I will, therefore, be addressing the mental health promotion efforts, community mental well-being initiatives, the affordability of mental health services as well as the manpower needs in providing mental health care. As shared by Dr Wan Rizal when he spoke on the importance of mental health literacy, raising awareness on mental health is crucial in shifting our societal values and attitudes towards making mental well-being, one of our priorities. We have made progress in this area as we see improvement in the public's attitudes towards individuals with mental health conditions. However, we recognise that stigma around mental health issues persist in our society. Our efforts include encouraging help-seeking, reducing stigma and discrimination against people with mental health conditions through public campaigns and targeted initiatives for youths, seniors, caregivers, women, persons with disabilities and minorities.”
“Mr Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Wong had explained the operating context that we are in and the approach we are taking, as we navigate the issues of mental health in our community. He highlighted an important starting point in our approach: that mental health issues lie on a spectrum and that, this means we need a broad suite of solutions. We also need to meaningfully organise the services and support available, so that people have access to the help they need, when they need it. Allow me to build on this point. Let me start by sharing data that we have from the Singapore Youth Epidemiology and Resilience study, conducted by the National University of Singapore (NUS) in collaboration with MOE. This study showed that while 37% of respondents reported having internalising symptoms, like depression and anxiety, only 12% of respondents met the full criteria for at least one of the mental disorders. Furthermore, 6% of the respondents, who previously met the criteria for at least one mental disorder more than a year ago, no longer had the symptoms. This means that while individuals may experience symptoms of poor mental health, they may be due to transient stressors and do not necessarily warrant the same intensity of interventions needed for individuals diagnosed with mental disorders. Receiving care in the community as the first line of support, rather than at hospitals, is therefore, more appropriate. The cornerstone of our National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy is the tiered care model. It sets the foundation for how our mental health services should be organised, with different care levels, depending on the intensity of interventions needed. This, ultimately, helps us to provide the right care at the right time, based on the individual's needs.”
“With regard to the Member's first supplementary question, I do not have the data on hand. The Member may wish to file another Parliamentary Question and we can provide the information if we have it. On the issue of extension of subsidies to the private AR centres, we are still in the midst of studying this. We do not have the timeframe yet and we will update the Member when the information is available.”
“Mr Speaker, the average Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) success rates in public and private assisted reproductive (AR) centres was provided in the reply to Question No 22 for the Sitting on 10 January 2024. [Please refer to "Statistics on Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rate for Public and Private Centres", Official Report, 10 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 119, Written Answers to Questions section.] The success rate for ART at public AR centres is higher than that in private AR centres. But the difference in ART success rates is within 10%. Hence, as explained previously, the success rates of public and private AR centres are comparable.”
“For example, when virtual assets, or what we term as digital assets, took off years ago, MAS had assessed the risk of financial crimes as a key area of concern due to the potential of digital assets to facilitate rapid and anonymous transactions online and across borders. In 2020, Singapore was one of the first jurisdictions in the world to tighten our regime by requiring licensing and supervision for providers of digital payment token services and imposing requirements to counter money laundering and terrorism financing. Mr Yip also asked about the effectiveness and safeguards in relation to casinos' anti-money laundering controls since 2006. From 2010, when the two casinos opened, to September 2023, 11 individuals were detected using criminal proceeds in the casinos and were prosecuted and convicted for money laundering offences. The Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) requires the casino operators to put in place safeguards to prevent money laundering, such as conducting customer due diligence checks and periodic monitoring of patrons' transactions. GRA also conducts regular inspections of the casino operators. I would like to conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill, which will allow clear alignment of the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sector with updated FATF requirements. It will also strengthen the regulatory regime for PSMDs and improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.”
“The new provision will allow enforcement action to be taken against former regulated dealers, for example, if they dispose of records to thwart investigations into offences under the PSPM Act detected while they were regulated dealers. Investigations for complex cases may take longer and extend beyond the dealer's registration period. Hence, it is important to preserve these records as evidence to assist in investigations. The Registrar will exercise his powers of investigations provided under the PSPM Act judiciously. MinLaw will also continually review the regulatory and enforcement resources to leverage technology where possible and work closely with stakeholders in the process. Mr Speaker, I believe I have addressed the salient issues raised by Members relating to the provisions within the scope of this Bill. There were a number of other comments relating to matters outside the ambit of the Bill. Mr Neil Parekh asked about instances where Singapore's security and policing authorities have detected efforts to use precious stones and metals in financing terrorism. To date, there has been no indication of the PSMD sector in Singapore being used to finance terrorism. Singapore closely monitors developments in the methods used by terrorists and remains vigilant in combating the threat of terrorism financing. Mr Yip asked about the specific measures that are being considered to manage risks associated with evolving technologies in the field of fintech. Criminal typologies and methods will continue to change in line with developments and advances in technology and we must keep pace with these changes. We regularly review and update our framework to counter activities in relation to financial crimes as criminals innovate.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked for the steps taken at the industry level to prevent the safeguards from becoming a box-checking exercise. MinLaw requires the entities it regulates to develop and implement measures to prevent financial crimes. We also carry out inspections, investigations and enforcement to ensure compliance. Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Yip asked about the education or support that will be provided to the regulated entities to help them understand and comply with the new requirements. Mr Parekh also asked about key concerns raised by pawnbrokers and PSMDs in relation to this Bill and how much time the regulated entities will be given to implement these new requirements. MinLaw will continue to engage the relevant sectors as the changes are rolled out. We will also provide guidance for the regulated entities to comply with the new requirements. While no major concerns have been raised during consultations, MinLaw will continue working with industry associations as the new requirements are implemented and, at the same time, having a view to the compliance costs. Should MinLaw come across regulated entities that are not complying with the requirements after the amendments are in force, we will assess and follow up with them to rectify the situation. We will take into consideration the time that regulated entities may reasonably need to implement these measures. Mr Yip asked about the requirement for former regulated dealers to continue keeping records for a prescribed period. The intention of this requirement is to deter errant PSMDs from disposing of records after ceasing to be regulated dealers.”
“MinLaw's review of issues in the current Bill started prior to the arrest of the suspects involved in the recent money laundering case. This is part of MinLaw's regular reviews to ensure that our laws remain relevant, effective and fully in line with the latest international standards set by the FATF. On the recent money laundering case, investigations by the Police are still ongoing. There are also ongoing probes by various sectoral regulators, including Government agencies overseeing corporate service providers, real estate agents, PSMDs, lawyers, financial institutions and others. An Inter-Ministerial Committee chaired by the Second Minister for Finance, Ms Indranee Rajah, has been formed to review Singapore's anti-money laundering regime and keep our regime up to date with increasingly sophisticated crimes. The Committee is currently reviewing the adequacies of the laws and controls in the entire anti-money laundering ecosystem to assess whether there are areas of enhancements to be made. The Committee will put forward its recommendations when ready. Next, I turn to the questions relating to the scope and implementation of the expanded regulations. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the requirements for PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors to implement measures to counter proliferation financing might result in excessive compliance burden on these businesses or persons. As mentioned in my opening speech for this Bill, these requirements are not expected to result in significant compliance implications on the regulated entities. The measures to counter proliferation financing are similar to the measures that the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors already have in place to counter money laundering and terrorism financing.”
“We have since taken substantial steps to address the few areas identified with scope for improvement and further strengthened our regime. For instance, Singapore passed the PSPM Act of 2019 and amended the Accountants Act to give the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) the powers to conduct inspections for compliance with requirements to combat money laundering and terrorism financing and impose sanctions on entities if they fail to comply with these requirements. These ongoing efforts were acknowledged by the FATF and had raised some of Singapore's ratings in the Third Follow Up Report of 2019. The amendments to the Bill before us today seek to align our regulatory regimes with the recent updates to the FATF standards in relation to countering proliferation financing. Singapore also actively contributes to the FATF, having taken on a range of leadership roles over the years. More recently, Singapore nominated Mr T Raja Kumar from MHA to run for the position of FATF President. He was appointed by the FATF Plenary in March 2022 for a two-year term between 30 June 2022 and 1 July 2024. Through Singapore's ongoing FATF Presidency, we have, among other things, increased global effectiveness of measures against financial crimes, such as in beneficial ownership transparency and asset recovery, and raised international efforts on tackling emerging areas of financial crime risks such as cyber-enabled fraud, which further strengthen global resilience against financial crime. Mr Dennis Tan asked whether this Bill factors in lessons from the recent money laundering case and whether the Government has started reviewing existing laws to better prevent money laundering in Singapore.”
“The RTIG involves all relevant supervisory and law enforcement agencies, including the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. It also facilitates the sharing of information on surveillance outputs, such as networks and subjects of concern, for collective action across law enforcement and supervisory agencies. Beyond coordinating within the Government, there is also close collaboration between Government agencies and the private sector to prevent, detect and deter activities in relation to financial crimes. An example is the AML/CFT Industry Partnership (ACIP). Co-chaired by MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), ACIP brings selected industry participants, regulators, law enforcement agencies and other Government entities to identify, assess and mitigate key and emerging financial crime risks that Singapore is facing. Another example of close public-private partnership is MinLaw's industry engagements with the precious stones and precious metals dealers (PSMD) industry. MinLaw has also taken steps through industry bodies to help PSMDs better understand and implement the relevant regulatory requirements. We will continue to ensure strong coordination and collaboration across agencies, work closely with the private sector and our international partners and effectively guard against illicit activities related to financial crimes. Mr Yip asked about the current status of our engagement with FATF, whether there are remaining gaps in the framework and the next milestones we can look forward to. Singapore was evaluated by the FATF in 2016 and was assessed to have a strong legal and institutional framework against money laundering and terrorism financing.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. Members also made comments and suggestions on Singapore's national strategy for preventing money laundering, terrorism financing, and proliferation financing or "financial crimes", and the scope and implementation of the expanded regulations. Let me address each group of issues in turn. First, on Singapore’s national strategy for preventing financial crimes. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Ng asked about our strategies in managing these risks and how agencies work together to ensure that our system effectively guards against these risks. Singapore's openness and hub status leave us vulnerable to exploitation by criminals who employ sophisticated tactics to access our financial and trading system and launder their ill-gotten gains. We must constantly review and enhance our regime and defences to keep pace with new risks as they evolve. Singapore adopts a holistic approach across the Government, in partnership with the private sector, and through international collaboration to combat financial crimes. The whole-of-Government effort is led by an inter-agency Steering Committee, which oversees the formulation and implementation of Singapore's national strategy for preventing financial crimes. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) is a member of this committee. Specific to the inter-agency coordination between regulators and law enforcement that Mr Yip asked about, an example is the Risk and Typologies Inter-Agency Group (RTIG), which is co-chaired by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). It oversees the identification, assessment, and mitigation of financial crime risks at the whole-of-Government level.”
“Mr Speaker, I appreciate the concerns raised by the Member. Since the introduction of the CDMP in 2006, there has been a gradual expansion of chronic conditions which are covered by CDMP. The CAC meets quite regularly, and they do review different conditions over time. In the past few years, looking at the different revisions that have happened, there is a frequency of about changes that happen in every three to five years. So, I think this will be a continuing effort on our part to look at all the different data and information to see what are the other conditions that can be included. The Member raised a point about looking ahead and considering how some of these conditions will impact people. Indeed, this is the thinking behind how we review the conditions that are included under CDMP because we do look at the disease burden and how the complications can arise if there is no early intervention. We look at the availability of evidence-based clinical guidelines for the appropriate care. So, these are all things that we do consider. In fact, we take into account some of the downstream effect if some efforts are not taken in to put in place. I do appreciate the Member's feedback. In fact, her inputs are useful because, as I mentioned earlier, even inputs from the Members of Parliament are also taken into account as we review the subsidies under all our different frameworks as well as CDMP.”
“Mr Speaker, conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) are regularly reviewed by the Clinical Advisory Committee (CAC). Most recently, gout, allergic rhinitis and chronic hepatitis B were added to the CDMP from 1 July 2022. In selecting conditions for review for inclusion in the CDMP, feedback and requests from medical professionals, the public and Members of Parliament are taken into account. The CAC consults clinical experts and considers factors such as disease prevalence, potential benefits of early intervention to patients' outcomes and the availability of evidence-based clinical guidelines for appropriate care of the condition. Eligible patients seeking care for non-CDMP chronic conditions, including glaucoma, can still receive up to 75% subsidies at polyclinics and Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs). Seniors aged 60 and above can also tap on Flexi-MediSave to pay up to $300 per year for the treatment of their non-CDMP chronic conditions at polyclinics, SOCs or the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) clinics. Patients who cannot afford the remaining co-payment after subsidies and MediSave can apply for further financial assistance, such as MediFund at public healthcare institutions. No Singaporean will be denied access to appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay.”
“It will also reaffirm our strong commitment to be a responsible member of the international community. With that Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“For instance, the Registrar may order them to pay financial penalties if they had failed to comply with the registration conditions, or if their registration was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Finally, the Bill amends the PSPM Act to improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 10 to allow the Registrar to cancel or suspend the registration of PSMDs that are not conducting regulated dealing and/or fall under prescribed circumstances. This will mitigate the risk of PSMDs misusing their registration status to gain access to the financial system to conduct illicit transactions, or to create an erroneous impression that their businesses are regulated by MinLaw, for any purpose other than the prevention of financial crimes. Clause 7 of the Bill introduces a new section 9A to provide that the registration of a registered PSMD lapses if the PSMD, as an entity, is wound up or otherwise dissolved, or if the PSMD, as a sole proprietor, dies. This will enable the Registrar to update the register more expeditiously. Clause 19 of the Bill introduces new sections 36A and 36B in the PSPM Act to prescribe methods of service of documents required or authorised by the Act to be served on any person. In particular, service through digital means will be prescribed to reduce the need for physical mail, better leverage technology and improve efficiency. Sir, in conclusion, the Bill will allow clear alignment of the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with updated FATF requirements, strengthen the regulatory regime for PSMDs, and improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs.”
“To close this gap, clause 4 of the Bill amends the definition of "precious product" to also cover any "precious product" priced above a prescribed value, which will be set at S$20,000, regardless of the value attributable to the PSPM. To illustrate, following the amendment, a platinum watch retailed by a luxury brand, with a net sales price of S$100,000, will be covered under the Act, even if the value of the platinum in the watch is less than 50% of the net sales price. The prescribed threshold value of S$20,000 is aligned with FATF standards and international best practices. Clause 4 of the Bill also amends the existing definition of "asset-backed token" to exclude digital payment tokens from the PSPM Act. This will avoid double regulation of PSMDs, as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) already regulates digital payment token service providers under the Payment Services Act. Clause 12 of the Bill introduces a new offence in the PSPM Act for regulated dealers that submit incomplete or inaccurate cash transaction reports without reasonable excuse. Compliance officers are instrumental in the implementation of controls to prevent financial crimes. Therefore, the Bill makes it clear that compliance officers appointed by PSMDs must be assessed by the Registrar to be "fit and proper" persons. To prevent errant dealers from disposing of records to thwart investigations after they cease being regulated dealers, the Bill introduces a record-keeping requirement for regulated dealers to keep records, for a prescribed period after ceasing to be a regulated dealer. Failure to comply would be an offence. In addition, the Bill will empower the Registrar to continue regulatory action against former registered PSMDs.”
“Examples of required measures include: performing risk assessment; and developing and implementing internal policies, procedures, and controls to counter proliferation financing. Such measures are not new to these businesses or persons. For many entities, such measures are already part of their existing anti-money laundering controls as the underlying proliferation financing offences are also money laundering predicate offences. In addition, the controls in the Moneylenders Act and Pawnbrokers Act against criminals owning or managing moneylending and pawnbroking businesses will be strengthened, in line with the FATF Recommendations. In particular, the Bill includes amendments to prevent persons convicted of offences relating to the prevention of financial crimes from obtaining relevant licences, or holding management functions in moneylending and pawnbroking businesses. Second, the Bill strengthens the regulatory regime for PSMDs through amendments to the PSPM Act. The Bill seeks to update the definition of "precious product". The PSPM Act covers precious stones and precious metals, or PSPM in short, and precious products. Under the current definition, "precious product" means any jewellery, watch, apparel, accessory, ornament, or other finished product – made up of, containing, or having attached to it, any PSPM; and where at least 50% of the value of the product is attributable to the PSPM. Based on the current definition, products with majority of value attributed to other factors, such as branding or workmanship, are not captured. However, we have observed that such products can also pose risks of financial crimes.”
“This is in addition to existing FATF requirements on money laundering and terrorism financing risks. This Bill, therefore, seeks to clearly align the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with the updated FATF standards on countering proliferation financing. This will be achieved through proposed amendments to four Acts, namely: the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act, or the PSPM Act; the Moneylenders Act; the Pawnbrokers Act; and the Legal Profession Act. In addition, this Bill proposes amendments to the PSPM Act to strengthen the regulatory regime and enhance operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. As a brief background, the PSPM Act was enacted in 2019 to provide a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory regime to prevent dealings in precious stones and precious metals from being used to facilitate money laundering or terrorism financing. Since its enactment, MinLaw has continued to engage the PSMD sector for feedback and to review our measures and practices, emerging risks, global trends and developments and international standards. The proposed amendments today are the culmination of these engagements and reviews. Let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill. First, the Bill updates the PSPM Act, Moneylenders Act, Pawnbrokers Act and Legal Profession Act to clearly align the regulatory regime for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with the updated FATF standards; and require businesses or persons covered by these Acts to implement adequate measures to counter proliferation financing.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.” Sir, Singapore is a leading financial centre and a global trading hub. Our economic openness makes us attractive for investments and businesses, but also makes us an attractive target for money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. I shall refer to these as "financial crimes" for convenience, throughout my speech. As a trusted international financial and trading hub, Singapore takes a firm stance against these activities. We therefore take a robust approach to supervision, (a) both in the financial sector and non-financial sectors, (b) in order to prevent financial crimes. In 1992, Singapore joined the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF. The FATF is the recognised international standards setter for the prevention of financial crimes. Over 200 jurisdictions subscribe to the international FATF Standards. Aside from the financial sector, the FATF has highlighted that other non-financial sectors also have an important role. This would include the following sectors which come under the Ministry of Law, or MinLaw’s purview: precious stones and precious metals dealers, or PSMDs; moneylending; pawnbroking; and legal services. As the regulator of these sectors, MinLaw regularly reviews our laws to ensure that they remain relevant, effective, and fully in line with the latest international standards set by the FATF. In recent years, the FATF has updated its standards, in particular, to set out clearly the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks associated with the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or “proliferation financing” in short.”
“Mr Louis Ng raised some questions on SPP, including on the relevant factors that the courts will consider before imposing SPP. To reiterate, SPP is generally based on the current CT and PD regimes so the principles and factors will be similar. These include the nature of the offences and the offender’s criminal history, and risk of recidivism. Mr Speaker, with that I conclude my round-up speech, and thank Members once again for their support for the Bill.”
“Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Sharael Taha also asked about measures to protect the public from serious offenders who are not sentenced to SPP or SEPP, including current offenders. Offenders serving imprisonment terms are first released on a remission order. For sufficiently serious offences, the offender will be subject to the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) during his remission period. While on MAS, he will be subject to conditions such as curfew, electronic monitoring, and supported with counselling, employment assistance and case management. Safety plans can also be formulated to protect potential victims. The MAS regime is broadly similar to the release on license regime for SPP and SEPP – the key difference is that the conditions under MAS cannot be extended beyond the remission period, which is why we need SEPP. Mr Sharael Taha raised the importance of upstream interventions, including preventative programmes and mental health support, a point that was also raised by Ms Usha Chandradas. Ms Usha Chandradas raised the point that stricter punishment on its own may not be sufficient to address violence against women. We agree and we are conscious that SEPP is not a silver bullet. We have to look at many approaches to tackle sexual violence as part of our ongoing reviews. I also earlier shared some of the measures we have put in place to support victims through the criminal process. In addition, the community – such as the parents and caregivers – also play an important role in protecting vulnerable individuals such as children. We urge them and victims to step forward, seek help and report such crimes to the Police so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.”
“Mr Sharael Taha raised the concern that the Internet use of such offenders will need to be monitored, as online platforms are often used to groom and exploit potential victims. There is a limit to what can be done. Prisons will consider imposing suitable conditions, but then again, it is not always going to be possible to guard against every possible risk, and a person may breach his conditions. Members also asked about other possible measures to tackle serious violent and sexual crimes. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Government had considered alternatives to SEPP and SPP. One option is to extend the range of situations in which life imprisonment can be imposed. But life imprisonment is a blunt tool that is not always appropriate. SEPP is a more measured solution specifically calibrated to the risk that the offender poses to the public. It balances public protection and fairness to the offender, so that he does not need to be detained for longer than necessary. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi suggested expanding the use of our current community-based programmes and interventions. These are options that remain available. However, they may not be appropriate or effective for the very serious cases that SEPP is intended to address, where the offender poses a danger to the community and needs to be detained further. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether the Government had considered chemical treatments or surgical options for sexual offenders before they are released. At present, we do not intend to introduce such measures – they give rise to various issues and may not add much to our existing sentences. The key point is that, under SEPP, there will be assessments to ensure that, as far as possible, the risks of releasing such offenders will be reduced.”
“There will be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court. There will be no further right of appeal from the Minister’s decision. I will next deal with questions on what happens after an SEPP offender is released on license. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether such offenders can be placed in half-way houses. The answer is yes – as with other ex-inmates, SEPP offenders released on license can be placed in half-way houses to support their reintegration. I thank her for the suggestion that we consider the restorative model of justice during the reintegration process. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Sharael Taha asked for greater clarity on the criteria for when an offender can be released without conditions. An SEPP offender who is detained will be released on licence. When an offender is released on licence, his case will be reviewed at least every two years by the Minister. The offender may then be unconditionally released depending on his progress outside of Prison, and the primary consideration will be whether his risk to others has been sufficiently addressed. Ms Hany Soh and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the conditions which may be imposed when an offender is released on licence. Ms Hany Soh asked if sexual offenders who are released from SEPP would be subjected to measures to prohibit them from coming into unnecessary contact with their former victims and children. In preparation for an offender’s release, Prisons would consider what conditions can be imposed on the offender that could help protect the victim. Obviously, this cannot be a complete guarantee.”
“But it is much better than the current situation where some come out without any risk assessment and destroy more lives, others spend an unnecessarily longer time in jail. To address Ms Sylvia Lim’s concern, the risk assessments are to identify the risk of violence, which includes physical violence and sexual violence. They are not used to predict the future. Instead, the tools guide the Detention Review Board and the Minister on the appropriate decision to be made, based on a variety of factors, including the risk assessment as well as the appropriate balance between the risk that the offender poses and the interests of public protection. Mr Desmond Choo asked about the frequency of these reviews. The legislation stipulates that there must be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked if the Minister will produce a report to justify the continued detention of the offender. The offender will be duly notified of the Minister’s decision. Members will appreciate that there are a number of considerations at play, including the possible need to keep certain information confidential as well as the need to prevent offenders from gaming the system. We will also consider and study what details, if any, can be made public. Mr Derrick Goh asked if an offender could appeal against the extension of his detention. I can assure the Member that Prisons and the Ministry will not want to keep anyone in prison longer than necessary. The Court would have already imposed a SEPP sentence on the offender. The offender would have had a right of appeal against his sentence and by the time he is serving the SEPP, he would either have exercised his right or appeal, or have given it up.”
“Each decision is case-specific, and the key factors will include the offender's conduct in prison, his rehabilitative progress and prospects, his likelihood of reoffending and the likely seriousness of the offences if he reoffends. These criteria will be set out in the subsidiary legislation. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the standard of proof that the Minister will apply when considering whether the offender ought to be released and whether he must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The review is a complex assessment of what is in the interest of public safety and protection based a number of factors, including the expert risk assessment and the offender's rehabilitative progress and prospects. Ultimately, it is a judgment that has to be made, based on expert assessments. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether an offender could make representations when he is reviewed for release. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether there could be independent advocates to represent the offender. As covered in the Minister's opening address, offenders can make written representations, whether by themselves, their family members or through their legal counsel, when they are reviewed for release. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Ng also asked about the methods for assessing an offender’s suitability for release. Ms Sylvia Lim also raised the concern that such assessments may give rise to false positives. Independent risk assessments by experts will play a role in this regime. Such assessments will be done by experts. When conducting the assessments, the assessor can also interview the subjects and possibly their next of kin, and this can be supplemented with relevant information from the agencies. All of this is not fail-proof.”
“The Minister's role in deciding whether to release the offender is not unique in our criminal justice system, as Minister Shanmugam shared earlier. Under the current sentences of Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, it is the Minister who decides whether someone should be released on licence before the end of the sentence. Similarly, for life imprisonment prisoners, the Minister decides if they should be released on remission before the end of the sentence. Similar considerations apply here. The Minister will also be advised by a Detention Review Board. There are also other jurisdictions with similar regimes. For example, Canada and New Zealand have similar sentences for dangerous offenders, where the offender is detained for a certain minimum period after which the offender can be detained further until a Parole Board decides that the offender is suitable for release. Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the constitution of the Detention Review Board. As mentioned during Minister Shanmugam's opening speech, the Review Board will comprise of persons with high public standing, with experience in forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. This may include retired judges, senior lawyers or senior psychiatrists and psychologists. Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Louis Ng asked about the criteria and frameworks that will guide the Minister and the Detention Review Board when assessing an offender's suitability for release. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked whether the views of the victims or families or public interest would be considered during the review.”
“This includes the Board of Visiting Justices, an independent body which conducts random inspections of prisons facilities and speaks to prisoners to ensure the welfare of prisoners. I next move on to the questions from Members, including Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, about the review process at the end of the Court-imposed minimum term. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about why it is the Minister, and not the Court, that decides on the offender's release, and if this interferes with the Court's sentencing powers. As Minister Shanmugam made clear, it is the Court which will decide whether SEPP is appropriate. The Court can decide not to impose SEPP if it of the view that an ordinary imprisonment term is more appropriate. When the Court decides that SEPP is appropriate, the possibility that the offender may be detained past the minimum period is a part of the sentence imposed by the Judge. The Court decides whether SEPP is appropriate in line with the usual sentencing power to assess how the considerations of deterrence, retribution, public protection and so on are to be given effect. After the minimum period, the decision is a different one. The continued detention of the offender past that point, once the term has expired, is no longer to punish the offender, but to protect the public. It involves a complex assessment of multiple factors including the risk that the offender might reoffend, his conduct in prison and his rehabilitative progress and prospects. The logical and principled approach is for this to be an executive decision. There can be judicial review in specific situations.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked whether there is any limit to the number of times the offender can be remanded in custody for the pre-sentencing risk assessment. There is no limit set out in the statute. To be clear, it is the Court which decides on the period of remand. The process will be similar to other pre-sentencing assessments, for example, for Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, which are supervised by the Courts. I will next deal with the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the rehabilitative resources available to offenders. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum suggested that they could be segregated from other prisoners with extra support. Prisoners sentenced to SEPP may not necessarily be segregated – they will be housed in line with prevailing Prison policies. This will allow them to benefit from the very comprehensive suite of rehabilitative programmes that are available to all inmates. These include work, religious and educational activities. Their suitability for such programmes will depend on their conduct, any medical conditions, willingness, as well as any programme-specific requirements. The offenders will also have access to psychology-based interventions targeting their specific needs, including specific violent and sexual interventions. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum also asked whether the treatment of offenders placed on SEPP and SPP can be subject to oversight by independent visitors. As SEPP and SPP offenders will be detained in prisons, all the safeguards and systems in place for our prisons will apply to them.”
“For example, to qualify for SEPP, the offender must be convicted of one of the serious violent or sexual offences in the new Seventh Schedule. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked why certain offences, such as sexual crimes committed through the Internet, do not qualify for SPP and SEPP. To clarify, the offences raised by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi do qualify for SPP. SEPP will apply for severe cases, as set out in the Bill. Mr Sharael Taha had questions about the sentencing for SEPP, including whether it applies to current offenders and whether it is imposed at the point of sentencing or release. SEPP does not apply to current offenders – the regime will only apply to offences committed after the amendments are passed and brought into force. As it is a sentence, it is imposed by the Court at the point of sentencing after the offender is convicted. Mr Sharael Taha also had questions on who would provide the risk assessment report to the Court and whether the offender can appeal against his sentence. Mr Desmond Choo asked if such reports should be mandatory. At the sentencing stage, the risk assessment report will be provided by an independent appointed psychiatrist, usually from IMH. For first-time offenders, the Court is obliged to call for the report. For repeat offenders, it is not mandatory, but the Court has the discretion to call for the report, where appropriate. In addition, the Defence can also produce its own expert reports. Any disputes over these expert assessments will be settled in line with existing principles of law. An appeal may also be filed if either the Prosecution or the Defence is dissatisfied with the Court's decision on the sentence.”
“Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about possible sentencing guidelines, and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had a question on the role of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in determining the ambit and types of offences that fall within the SEPP. The criteria are set out in the legislation in broad terms to give the Courts sufficient discretion to decide when SEPP should be appropriate, based on the specific facts of each case. I should also clarify that the types of offences that qualify for SEPP are set out in the legislation and is not something that the Sentencing Advisory Panel will decide on. Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted that even first-time offenders can be sentenced to SEPP, and raised the concern that SEPP may not be appropriate for one-off cases. We have sought to deal with this in the Bill. The Court must call for an independent risk assessment report for first-time offenders before deciding whether SEPP is appropriate. The legislation also requires the Court to be satisfied that the first-time offender "poses a substantial threat of causing serious physical or sexual harm to any other person or persons". This standard makes clear our policy intent that, for first-time offenders, SEPP should only be imposed in serious cases. Members may also refer to the case examples we provided. The first seven cases listed in the handout all relate to offenders with no previous convictions. Members would agree that these are egregious cases. If similar cases arise, our view is that the Court should have the option of imposing SEPP, even if the offender has no prior convictions. To respond to Mr Louis Ng's question about the differences between SEPP and SPP – SEPP has much more stringent criteria than SPP. This is set out in the legislation.”
“She raised some questions including whether it may be better for the Court to impose a long imprisonment sentence, as may already be done, rather than a SEPP. Our view is that simply increasing the length of the incarceration is not the right solution. Some dangerous offenders may continue to pose a danger to society, even after serving a very long prison sentence. I will refer to the list of case examples. Each victim is a serious tragic situation. Under the present law, we must release such offenders unconditionally after they have served their sentence, even if they still pose a danger to the public. On the other hand, there is also another situation which we should seek to avoid. These offenders could be subject to very long sentences upfront and may be detained for longer than necessary because the Court has to rely on an assessment done at the time of sentencing. Under SEPP, the Court does not always need to impose a longer sentence at the outset for public protection. It can better focus on the circumstances of the offence when setting the minimum period of custody, knowing that there will be a further risk assessment prior to release. This may very well result in the offender being detained for a shorter period, especially if he is successfully rehabilitated and can be released after the minimum period of custody. On the other hand, if he still poses a danger, he will continue to be detained – in such cases, the offender may be detained for longer than presently the case. This is also a more calibrated approach, as Minister Shanmugam shared. Next, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the suitability criteria and the factors which the Courts will consider when deciding whether to impose SEPP.”
“The definition is set out in the new section 221A(2). Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the proposed sections 221A to 221D prevent the Prosecution from disclosing Prosecution witnesses' statements, and asked about the circumstances in which the Prosecution would have to disclose such statements. These proposed provisions are consistent with the case law on the disclosure of Prosecution witnesses' statements. Statements of Prosecution witnesses may have to be disclosed to the Defence under section 221B if these statements fulfil the KDO criteria, which we are proposing to codify. This is set out in section 221A(1). Whether a Prosecution witness's statement has to be disclosed under the codified KDO in section 221B in a particular case, will depend on the facts. I will now address Members' questions on SEPP. The questions cover a number of areas, which I will deal with in turn. First, Members, including Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Mr Sharael Taha, asked for certain statistics, including on the number of repeat sex offenders and the number of offenders who are expected to receive SEPP. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked about the intended benefits of the regime. I start by clarifying that SEPP is not based on any specific crime trend. As Minister Shanmugam shared, SEPP is the outcome of our regular review of our laws. It is intended to provide the Courts with an additional tool to address dangerous offenders who commit serious crimes and pose an assessed risk of committing similar crimes again in the future after their release. Based on the current statistics, it may be less than 30 cases per year where the SEPP may be appropriate. Ms Sylvia Lim provided her cautious support for the regime, for which I thank her.”
“The proposed amendment will allow more accused persons to be released before trial, but this will only be in appropriate cases, after an assessment of various factors, including flight risk. There will be additional safeguards, given that there is no bailor to ensure the accused person's attendance. For example, the Court can only release a person on personal bond for these non-bailable offences if the Prosecution consents. Even if the Prosecution consents, the Court can still refuse to release the person on personal bond, if it assesses that it is not appropriate to do so. Where the Court releases an accused on personal bond, the Court must impose any condition specified by the Prosecution for the accused to be released on personal bond; and the Prosecution can withdraw consent previously given, at any stage of the proceedings. This caters for any changes of circumstances, including the discovery of new information relating to the accused's flight risk. Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the Panel of Psychiatrists. The work to operationalise the Panel is ongoing. We have been working to prepare the relevant subsidiary legislation and put in place the necessary processes relating to admissions to the Panel. As for Mr Derrick Goh's question on mitigating conflicts of interest in appointments by the Selection Committee, measures will be put in place to manage any potential or actual conflicts of interest. This includes the possibility of Selection Committee members or the Chief Justice recusing themselves from the matter, if necessary. I will now address the Members' questions on the proposed disclosure provisions. Mr Louis Ng asked who is considered a "material witness", for the purpose of the Prosecution's obligation under the new section 221B(1), clause 23 of the Bill.”
“For accused persons, where minor or vulnerable accused persons undergo intimate or invasive FME procedures, the Police will notify the accused person and, if possible, a trusted person, that the accused person has been required to undergo FME; inform them about the relevant FME procedure; and allow the accused person to speak with the trusted person on the phone through the speaker. This will be the general position, unless Police assess that investigations may be affected. The Police will also consider how to treat vulnerable accused persons, including those with disabilities or special needs sensitively, which was a point raised by Ms Denise Phua. We would also like to thank Ms Denise Phua for her other questions on specialised interview techniques for vulnerable persons, the Appropriate Adult Scheme and on supporting vulnerable persons during the criminal process, beyond the context of FMEs. This is an important area, and the Government has introduced changes in this regard in recent years. However, as these issues are not the focus of this Bill, we will not deal with them in detail today. We note Ms Phua’s points and will look into these as part of our regular reviews. Lastly, to Mr Derrick Goh’s questions about the number of cases where the lack of legal powers for FMEs has impeded investigations, the Police do not track this. Mr Speaker, I will now address the questions on our Court processes. Mr Derrick Goh had asked about abscondment and safeguarding against flight risks, for the proposal to allow the Courts to release accused persons on personal bond for non-bailable offences punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment or less. The number of cases where persons on personal bond absconded is not specifically tracked.”
“Beyond the amendments, the Police have also put in place measures to support victims. For example: (a) the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command, which is staffed by officers who are specifically trained to deal with sexual crime and family violence cases. (b) the Victim Care Cadre programme, which is offered to victims of family violence below 18 years of age and sexual crime. A Victim Care Officer will be assigned to provide emotional and practical support to victims throughout the criminal justice process; and (c) the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSAFE) Centre was redesigned and expanded with an enhanced improved design to provide victims with more privacy and convenience during the investigation process. MSF also encourages these victims to seek help from Protection Specialist Centres (PSCs), which can assist them in applying for Personal Protection Orders and facilitate alternative safe accommodation. Victims of sexual violence will be supported by forensic psychologists in the PSCs who will provide timely psychological assessments and interventions, such as the treatment of trauma. Victims or those who know of someone experiencing sexual violence can also contact the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment helpline at 1800-777-0000, which can provide psychosocial support and referrals to appropriate agencies. We would like to thank Assoc Prof Razwana Begum for her suggestions on the Victim Care Cadre Programme. We will consider them carefully.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked about the disclosure of intimate images, and Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Desmond Choo raised a similar question about precautions in relation to disclosure of material obtained through FME procedures. Under the proposed amendments, the Prosecution will not be required to serve on the Defence copies of documentary exhibits consisting any image of an individual’s genital or anal region or the breasts of a woman. Instead, the Prosecution must arrange for the Defence to view the documentary exhibit at a Police station or other prescribed place, if the Prosecution is legally required to disclose the exhibit and the Defence requests to view the exhibit. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Prosecution can serve a redacted exhibit where the intimate image is removed. Whether it is appropriate or practicable to serve a redacted form of the documentary exhibit will depend on the exhibit in question. I will next address the third category of questions which are about safeguards for vulnerable persons. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Denise Phua and Ms Nadia Samdin asked how victims and vulnerable persons will be supported. First, in relation to victims. Victim care is a key aspect of the Police’s procedures for handling sexual assault cases. As Minister Shanmugam mentioned, there will be safeguards in place, including reasonable privacy measures when the FME involves the subject’s intimate parts. These include measures to inform the victim about the relevant FME procedure and they can communicate any concerns. For minor or vulnerable victims undergoing FME, the Police may allow the victim to have a trusted person to be present to support the victim through the process, where this will facilitate the FME and not jeopardise investigations.”
“For example, a swab has to be taken from the penis of the accused person, and not from other body parts, when investigating into an alleged rape offence, to show proof of contact between the victim’s body and the accused person’s penis. For such instances, there are no substitutes for the intimate FME which has to be done. Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas had questions about the use of “reasonable force” on accused persons. Police will first look at the facts and circumstances of the case, before deciding whether an accused person should undergo an FME. There is time sensitivity in obtaining forensic evidence to minimise the risk of contamination. This is especially so for DNA evidence which degrades rapidly when exposed to the external environment. It would, therefore, not be feasible to require a warrant from the Courts before proceeding with the FME, including using reasonable force to carry out the FME when required. Police have established protocols on the use of force. What constitutes reasonable force will depend on the circumstances of the case. Examples include pulling on a cheek to swab the inside of the suspect’s mouth and holding the subject’s head still to obtain a hair sample. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the training of auxiliary police officers (APOs) in the conduct of FMEs. Reasonable force cannot be used on a victim and on FMEs involving intimate parts or invasive procedures. APOs undergo the appropriate training, which includes the use of reasonable force. Ms Usha Chandradas asked who will conduct the FME of the person’s intimate parts, if that person identifies differently from their registered sex. The Police will generally take reference from the sex that is registered on the individual’s identity card or identification document.”
“This is because medical treatments can have greater risks and have more significant bodily impact on the patient, compared to FME procedures. Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that medical advice be given prior to an FME. FMEs are forensic procedures. They are not medical treatments. Persons subject to an FME would be informed of the procedure and what to expect. Mr Derrick Goh asked if the victim can request to remove FME information that was collected without their consent. To reiterate, FME information will only be collected without a victim’s consent in exceptional circumstances. If forensic evidence has already been collected under such exceptional circumstances, the evidence will be retained to allow the Police to solve the crime and bring the perpetrator to justice. The information of the victim will be kept confidential and used for investigating the case at hand. Should the victim request not to pursue the case, Police will notify AGC of the victim’s request. Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor will decide whether to proceed with the case, in exercise of his independent prosecutorial discretion. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked about samples that are considered invasive. Whether a sample is invasive or not depends on the procedure used to obtain the sample. For example, obtaining a saliva sample via a buccal swab or extracting a hair sample by cutting the subject’s hair are not invasive procedures. Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether Police would prioritise less invasive and intimate procedures over more intrusive ones. It is often the case that particular types of forensic evidence can only be derived through specific FME procedures.”
“For example, beyond being told they will be examined, they will also be informed about the relevant procedure. For victims and their decision-makers, they can consider this information before deciding whether to consent. For accused persons, they will be reminded to comply unless they have a reasonable excuse, such as a health condition that would result in the FME endangering them. They will also be cautioned that if they do not comply without a reasonable excuse, reasonable force may be used, except where the FME relates to intimate parts or involves taking an invasive sample. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if victims can seek a forensic medical examination without reporting the matter to the Police. FMEs are forensic procedures for the purpose of gathering evidence for criminal investigations. The position we have taken in Singapore is that an FME will only be carried out on the direction of the Police. This is important for serious offences, so that Police can make timely intervention and commence investigations into the matter. Given that FME is a critical part of the criminal investigation, it should be conducted with oversight of the Police to be done robustly and with accountability. Victims who wish to seek medical treatment or counselling are always welcome to do so, with the institution or practitioner of their choice, but such treatment and counselling are not considered FME. On Mr Zhulkarnain’s question on allowing FMEs to be conducted by GPs, it is in the same context as mentioned earlier that some FMEs are only conducted at select public hospitals. These matters may end up in Court. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked why the age thresholds in the FME context are different from the general position for medical treatments.”
“To clarify, aside from the carve-outs for suspected perpetrators and persons who wish to conceal the offence, which the Member has already mentioned, the Police can proceed with the FME only if the authorised decision-maker abstains from giving consent. This could happen, for example, if they are in an estranged relationship and do not want to be involved in the decision. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the differentiated approach towards victims and accused persons, specifically the penalties for refusal and consent requirements for minor accused persons. As Minister Shanmugam explained in his opening speech, and as I have explained in my Malay speech earlier, we take a different approach towards victims and accused persons. This is because accused persons who have committed the offence may refuse to consent to the FME in a bid to escape liability. For accused persons who are minors, we take the same approach in terms of consent requirements. But at the same time, we are putting in place safeguards when FME procedures involve intimate parts or invasive procedures. On the other hand, we would want to ensure that victims are treated differently. To clarify, there will be no offence when victims refuse an FME. For accused persons, they will not be liable for the offence if they had a reasonable excuse to refuse the FME. I move on to the second category of questions about the procedures of FMEs. Ms Usha Chandradas and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked about the advice or information provided before the FME is carried out. Mr Desmond Choo asked what is considered reasonable excuse to refuse an FME. There will be measures put in place so that those who are asked to undergo the FME procedure know what to expect.”
“Ms Usha Chandradas asked for examples of temporary conditions other than intoxication. The examples in the Bill are non-exhaustive. Another example other than intoxication is when the victim has fainted. In such circumstances, Police will have to assess the situation. If there is no risk to the evidence, they can wait. Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about the thresholds for reasonable efforts under section 40H. In contacting a victim’s parent, guardian, deputy or donee. What constitutes reasonable efforts will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, which will include consideration of the time sensitivity of the FME. Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Nadia Samdin had questions about the consent requirements for minors, including a situation when a minor victim has differing preference with his or her parents on the consent of FME. For victims above the age of 14 years old, their consent is required to recognise their autonomy. The age threshold of 14 years old takes reference from the concept of Gillick competence used in medical law that a person aged 14 or above would have sufficient understanding and maturity to understand proposed medical procedure and consequences. For victims below the age of 16 years old, the consent of the authorised decision-maker is required. For victims between 14 and 16 years of age, consent from both the victim and his or her authorised decision-maker is required. Where either the victim or the parent does not consent, Police will not proceed with the FME. Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the basis of the Police overriding the wishes of a donee or guardian for FME conducted on the victim. She may be referring to section 40H(3)(b)(iii)(C) of the Bill.”
“For investigation into non-arrestable offences, Police will still need to obtain an order of the Public Prosecutor or a Magistrate before they can conduct searches without warrant. Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the safeguards to protect sensitive financial information obtained by LEAs. The relevant LEA officers are obliged to safeguard official information obtained during investigations under the Official Secrets Act. The specific LEAs must also adhere to guidelines in the Singapore Government Instructions Manual for Security of Classified Information and may also put in place operational safeguards to secure the data and prevent unauthorised access, for example, in respect of how the data will be stored and handled, and who can access the data. I next move on to the questions on FME. The questions broadly fall within three categories: first, issues relating to consent; second, procedures of FME; and third, safeguards for vulnerable persons undergoing FME. First, I address the questions about consent. Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about situations where an FME can be proceeded with where the victim cannot give consent and who makes the determination. The assessment of the victim's ability to consent will be made by the Police officer. Police may also consult relevant experts, where appropriate. For example, when a potential victim of sexual assault is brought to the hospital unconscious, the Police will generally take into account the assessment of the medical professionals treating the person, such as whether and when the person is likely to regain consciousness, before deciding whether to wait for the victim to regain consciousness or to proceed with FME without consent.”
“I thank the Members who spoke on the Bill for their questions and suggestions. I will first respond to questions regarding the law enforcement related amendments. Mr Derrick Goh asked whether the powers to pursue and re-arrest persons who escape from the lawful custody of Home Team Departments will be extended to non-Home Team law enforcement agencies (LEAs). Currently, we do not have plans to extend the powers to non-Home Team LEAs. Our assessment is that the extension of these powers to Home Team LEAs would suffice to effectively deal with persons who escape from lawful custody of Home Team Departments. At the same time, non-Home Team agencies may seek the assistance of the Police for persons who escape from their custody. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Raj Thomas and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the proposed amendments to allow the Police to conduct a search without warrant. This specific amendment is about searching a place, in order to investigate a specific arrestable offence, where the police believe that the item they are looking for, related to this investigation, is in the possession or control of the suspect. As I have mentioned earlier in my speech, this power is not new. The Police can already perform a search without warrant for arrestable offences in certain circumstances, and the amendment makes the exercise of this power more practicable. I have also spoken about the prerequisites before exercising this power. For example, Police will have to apply for a court order for a search where the owner of the property is not a suspect and is uncontactable. To clarify, the powers under section 34 are for investigation into arrestable offences.”
“Thank you. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. As Members can see, the CCD regime ensures that the Defence receives material from the Prosecution before the trial commences. On the whole, the proposed disclosure provisions reflect our commitment to ensuring transparency and fairness in criminal proceedings. Now, moving on to the last set of amendments under the Bill, which are the amendments to improve efficiency in our court processes. Clause 16 proposes to allow the Court to release persons accused of relatively minor non-bailable offences – that is, offences punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment – on personal bond, as an alternative to bail. Currently, such accused persons can only be released on bail and, will be remanded if they are offered bail but cannot find a bailor. This amendment will allow more accused persons to be released before trial, in appropriate cases. There will be safeguards to guard against the risk of absconding. For example, the Prosecution must consent, before the person can be released on personal bond. Even if the Prosecution consents, the Court can decide not to release the person on personal bail, if it considers that this would not be appropriate. Finally, there are also amendments to smoothen and clarify the processes for several new regimes introduced previously, such as the dispensation of oral hearings in certain cases, the new unsoundness of mind regime, the Panel of Psychiatrists and the enhanced victim compensation regime. Mr Speaker, the Bill is a significant milestone in our criminal justice framework. The proposed amendments, build on past reforms and demonstrate our commitment towards building a fair and effective criminal justice system that protects society from crime.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout detailing an overview of the post-amendment disclosure framework in CCD cases?”
“First, we will remove the possibility of opting out of the CCD regime in State Courts cases. Second, we will make it compulsory for the accused to file a CFD, after receiving the CFP, in High Court cases. As the CCD regime was novel when it was introduced in 2011, we took an incremental approach. Today, CFDs are regularly filed for most State Court CCD trials and this has contributed to a more efficient criminal justice system. When parties file the CFP and the CFD, this facilitates clearer identification of the disputed issues, which in turn, makes the trial more focused and efficient. Requiring the Defence to file a CFD also avoids potential delays that may arise from the belated disclosure of the Defence's case, which may arise due to a need for further investigations to verify the accused's claims or having to recall witnesses. The proposed changes will align the position in High Court cases with that for State Court cases. Given the complexity of trials in the High Court and the severe consequences involved, it is essential that parties can prepare for trial and assess their cases more fully. Finally, a clear articulation of the accused's defence in the CFD will help the Prosecution to identify relevant evidence, including evidence that may be helpful to the Defence and better comply with its KDO and ADO. The proposed provisions will also further fine-tune other aspects of the CCD regime. For example, we will enhance consistency between the Prosecution's CCD obligations in State Courts cases and High Court cases, by requiring the Prosecution to file a summary of facts in support of the charge in High Court CCD cases, similar to the State Court cases.”
“We want to be clear, that accused persons will not be prevented from running a new or different defence, which was genuinely uncovered after the Defence obtained new material disclosed under the ADO. If the accused decides to run a new or different defence based on new material disclosed under the ADO, he can explain his reasons for the change. The Court will consider the accused's explanation for changing his defence, and accordingly assess what, if any, inference should be drawn. Next, we will also provide rules for the disclosure of unused accused statements, specifically, that (a) unused accused statements are outside the scope of KDO; and (b) in non-CCD cases or CCD cases where the CFD is not filed, unused accused statements relevant to the charge are required to be disclosed only after the accused has testified or elected not to testify. Accused statements come from the accused, and are, hence, different from other types of unused material which the accused may not know about. The proposed rules are also consistent with the CCD regime, where accused statements which the Prosecution is not seeking to adduce as part of its case are required to be disclosed only after the accused has set out his defence in the CFD. The second aspect of the disclosure provisions, in clauses 14, 15, 18, 19 and 22, involves fine-tuning aspects of the CCD regime. The CCD regime has been in place since 2010 and has worked well in promoting greater transparency and efficiency in criminal trials. In 2018, we expanded the regime, so that more cases could benefit from pre-trial disclosure. We will now further expand the CCD regime to require compulsory participation in both State Court and High Court CCD cases.”
“We recognise the importance of the KDO and ADO in ensuring fairness to accused persons, and this is why we are putting these obligations in legislation. We have provided illustrations to help the public and parties understand what the obligations entail. Some aspects of the common law will be modified or clarified to better align with the sequential nature of the statutory disclosure regime. We will provide that ADO is to be given after the accused has committed to a defence, either in his Case for the Defence (CFD) or his testimony, in cases where there is no CFD. Moving the ADO to after the accused has committed to a defence, either in the CFD or in his testimony, is more consistent with the sequential and reciprocal nature of the CCD regime, where the accused will generally only receive material after filing the CFD. I would also highlight that, statements of material witnesses that are helpful to the accused will be disclosed earlier, pursuant to the KDO. This would take place when the Case for the Prosecution (CFP) is filed, in CCD cases; or, in non-CCD cases, before the trial commences. Accused persons are expected to state their defence honestly. Generally, they would be able to do so, based on what they know. However, we also considered feedback, that there may be cases where accused persons decide to change their defence after obtaining new material disclosed under the ADO. There were concerns that, in cases where the new defence is a genuine one, which the accused could not have known about earlier, an adverse inference could be unfairly drawn against the accused.”
“While the initial set of disclosure proposals were ready in early 2021, we took time to finalise them because of our extensive consultations with the various stakeholders, including the Defence Bar, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the Courts. These proposals were arrived at after extensive discussions with the Defence Bar. We presented the proposals to criminal practitioners and members of the Law Society in 2021, and they provided extensive feedback over multiple consultation sessions through to late 2023. Some of the proposals were adjusted significantly, following the feedback received. While we did not agree with the Bar on every point, we explained the rationale for the proposals, and had candid and robust discussions. Through this process, we were assured that the viewpoints and implications on the various stakeholders, including the Defence and the Prosecution, have been considered, to ensure that our proposed amendments are fair. Ultimately, the regime requires all stakeholders to play their part to ensure procedural fairness. Prosecutors are expected to discharge their disclosure obligations dutifully. The AG has also said publicly that prosecutors take great care to comply with their disclosure obligations, in fairness to the Defence. I will now take you through the proposed disclosure provisions. There are two key aspects. First, clauses 23 and 42, place the common law disclosure rules on a statutory footing, by codifying, clarifying or modifying aspects of the common law. The provisions will codify the common law position on: one, the scope of the KDO and ADO; two, the timing of the KDO; and three, the continuing nature of the KDO and ADO, among others.”