Sun Xueling
Singapore
“We are deploying electric vehicle (EV) chargers in tandem with growing demand, within the constraints of space and electricity. As EV technology is continuously improving, we are also mindful not to overbuild as chargers can become obsolete quickly.”
“I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.”
“The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.”
“In 2025, about 30% of Build-To-Order (BTO) blocks were completed earlier than their estimated completion dates at the point of flat booking. On average, these blocks were completed about two months earlier.”
“Yes, thank you. We agree with Dr Neo that it is important to bring together the wider ecosystem and we will consult all stakeholders. The Ministry of Transport's immediate focus is to drive the usage of drones more extensively, especially by the public sector and this is because we already have many potential use cases.”
“I thank the Member for her question. Earlier, I mentioned in my reply that the HDB notifies buyers at three junctures. This is to give buyers adequate time to plan. And that is why it is at the one year before, six months before and three months before.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,352 lines we hold for Sun Xueling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 28.
“Under the Fire Code, functional spaces within a building are assigned an occupant load factor which determines the maximum number of people allowed at any point of time and there must also be sufficient egress capacity. In general, the Fire Code requires every storey of a building to have at least two independent exit staircases to ensure timely evacuation. Higher risk premises, such as those with an occupant load of 1,000 persons or more; floor area of 5,000 square metres (sqm) or more; or nine storeys or more, including basement levels, require an FSM to be appointed. The Police conduct frequent patrols when there are large crowds at locations like Little India and Chinatown, and also deploy various sensors, such as CCTVs and drones to monitor the ground situation. They may be augmented by Auxiliary Police Officers. Members of the public may call 999 to alert the Police if there are safety concerns related to overcrowding. If the Police assesses that there are disturbances to the mood of a crowd, the Police may seek to remove the source of the agitation. The Police may also provide adequate space for crowd dispersal or provide clear instructions on how the crowd may exit the congested area. To do so, the Police may use voice amplification devices, such as loudhailers, to gain the attention of the crowd. To increase public awareness, the Police publicise safety measures pre-, during and post-event. The Police may also pre-empt the public on potential crowding and alert the public to avoid areas or events which are already crowded. For example, at National Day Parade 2022, the Crowd@MarinaBay website provided live updates of the crowd situation at hotspots for fireworks viewing in the Marina Bay area.”
“The Singapore Police Force (SPF) works with the relevant stakeholders to put in place measures to mitigate the risks associated with large crowds. Under the Public Order Act, event organisers, otherwise known as EOs, are required to notify the Police of public events expected to attract crowds of 5,000 persons or more, or private events expected to attract crowds of 10,000 persons or more. The Police will, then, engage these EOs on the appropriate measures to be deployed for public safety. The Police also works closely with the EOs and other stakeholders on crowd management plans for major events, such as the National Day Parade, Christmas festivities at Orchard Road, New Year countdowns and the Formula One Night Race. These plans may include measures such as the monitoring of crowd size, the deployment of security personnel and the regulation of crowd flow at congregation areas and potential chokepoints. They may also include cordoning off areas with public safety risks, such as narrow pathways and bridges and signages to guide the public on diversions and closures of thoroughfares. The Police are deployed on-the-ground at these major events to ensure law and order, as well as to provide swift responses to incidents. Contingency plans are also put in place. These may involve catering for emergency lanes to facilitate emergency responses within crowded areas and closing off high-risk areas pre-emptively before they become overcrowded. As for indoor venues, occupant limits are regulated by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) under the Fire Code and Fire Safety Manager (FSM) Regulations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer together Question Nos 9 to 15 in today's Order Paper?”
“In this Year of Celebrating SG Families, it is timely for us to reflect on how each and every one of us can come together in our own ways to make Singapore truly a home, a playground and a caring society that values and supports families at every stage of life. Let us, collectively, work towards achieving A Singapore Made for Families. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 5.16 pm.”
“From child-friendly museums to nature playgrounds, the options for the perfect family day out are endless. Quite a few of these activities are admission-free and of high quality, such as the heritage trails found around the various heartlands in Singapore that allow families to discover the untold stories behind our well-known neighbourhoods. At the grassroots level, families can find workshops, carnivals and festival celebrations within their neighbourhoods. I am glad to hear of the initiatives Ms Hany Soh mentioned. With the school holidays coming up, families can look forward to activities and courses run by People's Association (PA) under their School Holidays Series, which are specially curated courses catered for families. Parents can also spend quality time bonding with their children through parent-child craft workshops or learn more through various parenting courses. I would like to assure her that the Government firmly believes that amenities and activities which are family-friendly should, as far as possible, be made available to as many residents as possible and we will try our best to nudge corporates and organisations to contribute. As part of the Made for Families 2025 plan, Families for Life will also be working with partners to organise events, such as family picnics and family days. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, building a Singapore Made For Families takes a whole-of-society effort. The Government is committed to doing its part and we will work closely with employers, community partners and the wider society so that all can play this very important role to nurture a supportive ecosystem for families to live, play and work in Singapore.”
“This is why the Government and our tripartite partners have urged employers to sustain their FWAs through the Tripartite Statement released in April this year. The tripartite partners have been steadily bringing more companies on board the Tripartite Standard on FWAs and we encourage employers who intend to or already provide FWAs to adopt the Standard and be recognised as a progressive employer of choice. By 2024, we will introduce the Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs, which will require all employers to consider requests for FWAs fairly and properly. Families for Life (FFL), the national movement to strengthen and support families, has also been working closely with trade associations and companies to champion family-friendly practices in the workplace, such as leaving work early for Eat With Your Family days, something that was also highlighted by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat yesterday. Companies with family-friendly programmes are encouraged to adopt the Made For Families brand mark and are recognised through the Centre for Fathering's annual "Great Companies for Dads Awards". Of course, family time is not just about quantity but also quality. The AFAM's Focal Area 3: Parenting Together has been working together with our community partners and myself to share parenting tips to better support quality family time. I note Ms Soh's suggestion on the importance of having affordable options for family bonding activities. Although the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers scheme has ended, there are still deals and promotions for family activities, such as those by our Made For Families partners. As Ms Soh has mentioned, there are many hidden gems in Singapore that families can discover together.”
“These include increasing recruitment, reallocating and optimising manpower. Despite the number of early childhood educators increasing steadily from 18,000 in 2018 to over 23,000 in 2021, the workforce will require about 3,500 more educators by 2025 to meet the demands of the growing number of preschool places in Singapore. We hope that the recently announced salary revisions of a 10% to 30% pay raise for preschool educators can help to meet this demand but, fundamentally, to echo what Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had said before, we, as a society, have to value the work of social service professionals and early childhood educators in order to attract more people into the sector. Without a core workforce to support our early childhood sector, we will face constraints growing capacity. I agree with Ms Hany Soh that working from home has given many parents the joy of spending more time with their families and that working parents sometimes need the flexibility to leave office earlier or to adjust their work schedules to tend to family commitments. This brings me to the second point on flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and the critical role that employers play here. The pandemic has made FWAs like telecommuting and staggered work hours much more prevalent, such as the hybrid work arrangements practised by the Public Service. More employers have also come to realise how FWAs can help them both strengthen business resilience and enhance their ability to attract and retain talent. Employees also appreciate how FWAs enable them to spend more quality family time, which, in turn, energises them to go the extra mile in their work. When implemented well, FWAs achieve a win-win outcome for employers and employees.”
“As Ms Hany Soh shared, Minister Masagos Zulkifli had recently announced an expansion of another 22,000 places over the next two years, including about 2,800 places and 4,400 places set aside for infant care and playgroups respectively. With this, we are on track to ensure that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in Government-supported preschools by about 2025. Currently, over 90% of children are enrolled in preschool by the age of four but we recognise that the situation remains tight for the earlier years, especially in newer housing developments with many young families. We are working closely with HDB and anchor operators to ramp up operations and manpower, where possible, to enrol more infants and children in newly opened centres in the coming months. Similar to what Ms Hany Soh suggested, we are also exploring if it is possible to build extensions, such as through activating available void deck space or communal spaces, and also whether there is room to increase capacity and the capabilities of our existing preschools while balancing the needs of our children and our educators. Even as we continue to develop more preschools closer to homes, we also seek parents' understanding that it is not always possible to ensure all families have a preschool right next door, near to their homes, as there can be various constraints both in terms of manpower as well as physical infrastructure constraints. Hence, we echo Ms Hany Soh's suggestion that a possibility could be to look at preschools near workplaces. We are already doing so – exploring this – but we would also need parents to be amenable to these suggestions. I had earlier mentioned working closely with anchor operators to ramp up operations and manpower.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member Ms Hany Soh for reaffirming the importance of the institution of the family in Singapore's society and for her suggestions. Strong families are the bedrock of our society. They can be an individual's first pillar of support in good and bad times. Strong families also help to build resilient individuals who can then be able to tackle challenges that come their way. The Government is fully committed to strengthening our families throughout their life journey and had designated this year as the Year of Celebrating SG Families (YCF). Just yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat launched A Singapore Made For Families 2025 plan (MFF 2025). This is a national plan that affirms our whole-of-society effort to create a family-friendly Singapore. It encapsulates the aspirations arising from numerous engagements with families, community partners and faith groups and builds on the work of the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships (AFAM). I will now respond specifically to the issues Ms Hany Soh had highlighted. First, Ms Hany Soh spoke about the availability of infant care. Providing access to quality, affordable preschools remains a key priority for the Government. We have made preschools more affordable by enhancing preschool subsidies and lowering fee caps at Government-supported preschools. Over the last five years, we have increased the national supply of preschool places significantly – infant care places by around 60%, from 7,500 places in 2017 to over 12,000 places today, and childcare places by 35%, from 143,000 places in 2017 to 195,000 places.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Indeed, we fully agree with the Member that the wearing of body-worn cameras greatly improves the safety of our security officers. As I mentioned in my main reply, it also aids when it comes to investigations, potential liabilities. And that liability not only extends to the security officer himself but also the agency that he is working for. We do see that, as part of the security ITM, buyers and security agencies are encouraged to implement security solutions that help to integrate manpower, technology as well as process improvements. And it is worth noting that security agencies have been investing more in technology since the start of the ITM. For instance, today, 97% of security agencies use at least one technology solution, such as mobile-enabled patrol and incident management systems as well as the use of wearable technology, like what the Member mentioned, body-worn cameras. That said, on whether or not to make body-worn cameras compulsory, these are issues to be discussed between the service buyer and the service provider. We have to take into account various factors, such as the needs of the buyer, the deployment location, as well as the costs that may be required. On the Member's Parliamentary Question as to when we would be reviewing once again, definitely, we will involve our industry partners and union friends as well in those discussions. As I have mentioned in my main reply, it has only been about six months since the amendments came into effect in May 2022. So, we will continue to monitor. But rest assured that when we next review this, we will definitely work with all our industry partners. 1.30 pm”
“But even with more pervasive use of technology, abuse can still happen. This is why we need to enhance training for security officers so that they can better protect themselves. MHA and the Police have been working with the tripartite partners to enhance the competency of security officers in public engagement and conflict management, such as customer orientation, problem solving and de-escalation skills. We will make these subjects more pertinent in the training that all security officers undergo before deployment and assess how it can also be incorporated into refreshers for in-service officers. Finally, we work with the tripartite partners on public education to reinforce the message that abuse of security officers will not be condoned. This will include sharing available avenues for officers to seek help, such as through the Union of Security Employees (USE)’s free mobile application launched in December 2021 and the USE’s Mediation Service.”
“MHA takes a very serious view of abuse and harassment of security officers. In October 2021, MHA amended the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) to enhance protections for them. New offences addressing the common types of abuse and harassment were introduced, with penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against general members of the public. The amendments have been in force since May 2022. Given that it has only been six months since, it is too early to conclude on their impact. Nevertheless, anecdotally, the new legal provisions have enhanced awareness among security officers of the protections afforded to them, and have encouraged them and their employers to come forward to report incidents of abuse or harassment. Preventing and deterring abuse and harassment of security officers requires the whole of society. The nature of their work, which could involve restricting access to premises, crowd control and conflict mediation, invariably exposes them to greater risk of confrontation with people. Unfortunately, there are individuals who may respond irrationally and unreasonably to requests and directions given by security officers, with some even causing physical hurt. Security agencies and service buyers play key roles in protecting their security officers. We are heartened to see that many are leveraging technology to create more productive and safer working environments. For example, there are now more security officers equipped with body-worn cameras while on duty. From 2019 to October 2022, the Police approved 46 requests by 16 licensed security agencies for the use of body-worn cameras. The use of such cameras will allow for better onsite management and the additional evidence from the footages will facilitate investigations into allegations of abuse.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer together Question Nos 15 and 16 in today’s Order Paper?”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I had mentioned earlier in my main reply, most preschools use electronic locks at the entrance and visitors as well as people leaving the centre are only allowed to do so when there is a proper check and balance of who these persons are. Though the Member mentioned that there are large numbers of people gathered, potentially, at dismissal time, actually, not all the children leave the preschool at the same time; we have seen staggered dismissal timings as well. I am quite sure that the Member, myself included, have been to these preschools when it is dismissal time and we have seen that, actually, the teacher allows the students to go only after the teacher has taken a look at who is the caregiver who is there to pick up the child. Most schools also would take note of who the caregiver is who picks up the child and there are also instances where, if the caregiver is not someone that the school recognises, the school then checks in with the family.”
“Despite the best efforts by ECDA and our preschools to ensure the safety of children and staff, untoward incidents may still occur. So, apart from preventive measures, preschools, parents and the wider community must stay vigilant and be prepared to handle such incidents should they occur. More fundamentally, it is important to continue to ensure that our society is safe, for example, by having strict controls over gun ownership and maintaining our zero-tolerance stance towards illicit drugs. Otherwise, it would not just be security in preschools that we have to worry about, but the security for the whole of society.”
“The safety of children in our preschools is of utmost importance. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has regulations that require preschools to put in place measures to protect children and staff from security threats. All preschools are required to keep their premises secured to prevent any unauthorised personnel from entering the centre. Most preschools use electronic locks at the entrance and visitors are only allowed entry after checks. Every preschool must have procedures in place to check and record the entry and exit of all persons. All preschools are also required to establish standard operating procedures (SOPs) to handle safety-related incidents, injuries and emergency evacuation during a crisis. Emergency evacuation exercises for all children and staff in preschools must be conducted every six months. Such exercises ensure staff and children are familiar with the processes and are able to respond quickly during a crisis like a fire, terrorist attack or bomb threat. It also enables preschools to validate and strengthen their SOPs. ECDA’s licensing officers conduct regular licensing and supervisory visits to ensure preschools comply with our regulatory measures to keep their children safe and secure. ECDA also reviews regularly the regulatory requirements for preschools and will update them as necessary. ECDA collaborates with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to organise Counter Terrorism seminars for preschools under SGSecure. Preschools are also advised to adopt SGSecure advisories, such as “Run-Hide-Tell” and “Press-Tie-Tell”, which MHA shares with the public and organisations to build vigilance and preparedness against terrorism.”
“I thank the Member for the two points that he has raised. On the first point, I had mentioned in my earlier reply that we do conduct surveys to collect staff feedback at regular junctures. We also have regular engagement exercises with our staff officers at various levels, sometimes on very large platforms and sometimes on much smaller platforms. For instance, for myself, I engage officers over breakfast – sometimes, 10 to 20 people – to hear the tensions they may be facing, the stresses they may be facing, to really get ground-up feedback to get a sense of what they are facing, whether or not it is in their personal lives or whether or not it is what they are facing in terms of their everyday work environment. It is through these engagements that we get a sense of what are some of the stressors that they may be facing. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, this is continuous, ongoing work. We will need the help of family and friends, because family and friends are often the most connected to these officers and they would know if there were any life-changing events that will throw them off course and lead them to choose a very unfortunate way out. So, this is continuous work in progress. On the second point the Member mentioned about geo-fencing, we can have a think about it, but I think we do have to balance the need for privacy as well as the needs of the job, but we thank the Member very much for that suggestion.”
“I thank the Member for his question and also his concern for Home Team officers as well as APFs. The situation in Singapore is different from what the Member has cited regarding the suicide rate of US law enforcement officers. Every suicide is one too many and I do not wish to trivialise the situation. But our statistics show that the suicide rate among the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) staff is about half that of the Singapore national average. I thank the Member for his suggestion on having toolkits and building the right culture to seek help and ensuring access to help channels for our officers. In my earlier reply, I had talked about the resilience training, which is conducted for ground officers across the Home Team departments. There are also simplified and easy to use toolkits which will help supervisors identify officers who are in distress. In addition, resources of support are shared regularly with officers through various channels. Regardless, this is ongoing, very important work to ensure that the mental health of our officers is well taken care of. We will continuously look at various means to encourage destigmatisation of mental health and to provide help channels which are useful to our officers should they require such support.”
“If officers are assessed at any point to be unsuitable to carry firearms, they will not be issued with firearms and will be redeployed to other duties to allow them to settle down and recover from whatever strains they may be facing. We will continue to strengthen the support for the mental health and well-being of officers in the Home Team and the APFs but we will also require the help of family and friends, of officers in the Home Team and the APF as these family and friends may be in most frequent contact with the officers and are best able to detect changes in moods, in dispositions and be most sensitive to life events happening to these officers.”
“The Home Team makes external counselling services available to all our officers, including frontline officers. The aim is to make it easier for them to access external help. This is confidential and anonymous, and we do not track who attends these services. The external counsellors will activate emergency services if they assess that there could be a threat of harm by the officers to themselves, or to others. The Police do not track the number of officers who have sought counselling or para-counselling assistance. Officers are not required to report their engagement of such assistance as the confidentiality of help-seeking is important to encourage officers with problems to come forward. Officers who seek help are not specifically disadvantaged in their career because they had sought help. They are assessed on their on-the-job performance and their promotion is based on merit and their potential to assume higher appointments. SPF psychologists try and demystify the myths and stigma of help-seeking during their regular mental health outreach to all Police officers. There is increased outreach every October, in line with World Mental Health Day, to build awareness of the importance of mental health and to encourage help-seeking. Where the bearing of firearms is concerned, all Police officers and Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) undergo security vetting before employment. Medical and psychological assessments are conducted as part of the recruitment exercise for the SPF and for most of the Auxiliary Police Forces (APFs). Supervisors engage officers to check on their well-being. Officers are also encouraged to alert their supervisors if they think their peers may need help.”
“Mr Speaker, my response will cover the matters raised in the questions by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Dr Shahira Abdullah and Mr Melvin Yong, who had asked similar questions yesterday, which we have given a written answer to. Between January 2018 and September 2022, 74 uniformed officers in the Home Team passed away while in service. The majority of these deaths were due to illnesses or natural causes. Eight deaths were ruled as suicide. The cause of death for three others, which had elements to suggest possible suicide, are pending coronial investigations. With regard to mental health, Home Team officers are provided with avenues of support from the time they join the Home Team. Resilience and stress management training is provided to all new officers. We provide training on detection of personal distress and this includes suicide prevention. Staff feedback is collected through regular staff engagement and pulse surveys, and the concerns raised include issues which officers may face in the workplace. Home Team supervisors are trained with the skills to identify and support officers who need help. This approach and culture have been built over several years. Across the Home Team departments, in-house psychological services are made available to officers, including first responders. Psychologists in the Home Team departments attend to the mental health needs of the officers. Peer support programmes, such as para-counsellors, have also been implemented in Home Team departments to provide care and support. For the Singapore Police Force (SPF), there is also a 24/7 helpline managed in-house by our psychologists and SPF senior para-counsellors. We have another external agency-administered 24/7 helpline which is available to all Home Team officers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 13, 14 and 15 in today's Order Paper?”
“The Bill will help improve the conduct of the debt collection industry and better address disamenities that may arise from problematic debt collection conduct. Once again, I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.”
“As mentioned in my opening speech, the Bill provides saving and transitional provisions to ensure that sufficient time is provided for existing debt collection businesses and debt collectors who wish to continue operating their debt collection business or acting as debt collectors to transit into the new regime. Mr Louis Chua, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked a few questions which are beyond the scope of the Bill but have close nexus with debt collection. For example, whether there will be guidelines to help residents not fall prey to scams, whether the community legal clinics are sufficient for residents to seek legal advice, whether there will be measures to protect vulnerable segments of the population from excessive borrowing and making debt counselling and restructuring more widely available, as well as whether we can consider introducing a scheme for debtors to seek temporary relief from debt collection activities, similar to the Debt Respite Scheme in the UK. We will pass this feedback to the relevant agencies to study separately. On Mr Don Wee’s question regarding unlicensed moneylending syndicates that resort to depositing unsolicited amounts of money into the bank accounts of ex-borrowers and forcing them to make payments for the unsolicited loans, there have been such cases reported since 2011. The Police will continue to monitor them closely. Members of the public who wish to take up loans should only borrow from licensed entities, such as banks, financial institutions and licensed moneylenders. We also encourage members of the public to be vigilant and exercise due care before furnishing personal particulars and banking credentials for any purposes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have addressed the Members’ concerns.”
“Ms Foo Mee Har suggested for the management and staff of debt collection businesses to undergo accredited training programmes covering the debt collection regulations and for debt collectors to pass a test before they are approved by Police to be debt collectors. Mr Dennis Tan asked about training for potential debt collectors. We will require licensees to put in place measures, such as proper training, to ensure that their debt collectors understand and comply with the Debt Collection Bill and other written laws. However, the Police will not be administering tests for debt collectors. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the selection of licensing officers and Mr Louis Ng asked about the appointment and protection of compliance officers. Compliance officers will be suitably trained before they carry out their duties. Unlike licensing officers who are Police officers, compliance officers will not be authorised to detain or arrest any individual, to search any place or individual, or to seize any property. There will be audit checks on compliance officers to ensure that they are proficient in carrying out their duties and these safeguards are similar to other regulatory regimes under the Police’s purview. On Mr Louis Ng’s point on protecting compliance officers, they will be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of the Penal Code and will receive the same protection as public officers when exercising powers under the Bill. Mr Dennis Tan asked how we will assist existing players to transit into the new regulatory regime.”
“Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan asked about educating the public on the regulations under the Debt Collection Bill. Information on the debt collection regulatory regime will be published on Police’s website. Mr Dennis Tan also asked if the Government can conduct a public education campaign. We thank the Member for the suggestion and we will study this. Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Yip Hon Weng have voiced their concerns over debtors who make malicious or frivolous complaints against debt collectors to frustrate the debt collection process and asked if there will be safeguards against these debtors. As the Member rightly pointed out, furnishing false information to cause Police to act against debt collectors is punishable under section 182 of the Penal Code. Police will investigate and take action against the debtor if an offence is disclosed. There are also safeguards within the Bill to avoid penalising innocent debt collection businesses and debt collectors. Before regulatory action can be taken against the licensee or debt collector, the Licensing Officer must first give a written notice to the licensee or the debt collector and provide at least 14 days after the written notice is served, for written representations to be made to the Licensing Officer with respect to the proposed regulatory action. On the questions raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng on regulating the remuneration structure for debt collection businesses, the Bill allows the Minister to make such regulations. However, we have assessed that there is no need to do so currently. Nevertheless, we will monitor the situation closely.”
“Livestreaming of debt collection activities, in and of itself, is not an offence unless it crosses the threshold for other criminal offences, such as the Protection from Harassment Act. Mr Dennis Tan asked if we will be introducing any regulations on prohibited debt collection conduct other than the ones we have announced in the public consultation paper. We, currently, do not have these plans. Mr Leon Perera asked whether levers under various legislations could be unified and harmonised. Today, legislation, such as the Penal Code and Protection from Harassment Act, apply to everyone. Taking into account our observation of the debt collection activities, we are introducing additional levers that are more specific to the debt collection industry. Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about issuing a code of practice and putting in place measures to ensure compliance with the code. Given that there will be regulations to guide the conduct of debt collection businesses and their debt collectors, we do not intend to issue a code of practice for now. To address Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng's question about how debtors may verify the legitimacy of debt collectors, we will require debt collectors to show proof of the Licensing Officer's approval, when asked to do so. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the potential avenues for members of the public to lodge complaints against errant debt collection activities. Members of the public may lodge a Police report online via the i-Witness Portal or Police’s e-services website. They may also do so in person at a Neighbourhood Police Centre or Neighbourhood Police Post. If immediate Police assistance is required, they should contact the Police at "999".”
“The Debt Collection Regulations will also prohibit debt collectors from continuing to collect debt from a debtor if the debtor has informed the debt collection business or collector that the debt is in dispute or that the debtor has initiated a process to settle the debt through other means. The acceptable process for this will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. This could include mediation or Court proceedings. Debt collectors will also be required to ensure that there is a proper contract detailing the terms of appointment by the creditor, the debt to be recovered, the payment schedule and the debtor's identity. These will minimise potential disputes between the debtor and debt collectors. I will also add that for instances of debt collectors collecting debts from victims whose identities have been misused by impersonators to borrow money, cheating by personation is punishable under section 419 of the Penal Code. If such cases are reported, the Police will investigate the matter. However, the Police do not investigate civil disputes about the debt. Mr Louis Chua asked if there will be clearer regulations proscribing unacceptable debt collection methods and Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if problematic debt collection conduct on online platforms will be prohibited under the Bill. As mentioned in my opening speech, we will introduce the regulations prohibiting any behaviour that threatens the physical safety of the debtor or any other third parties, such as the debtor's family members. This includes sending text or social media messages to the debtor, threatening physical harm to the debtor or his or her family.”
“The considerations used to assess whether an individual is fit and proper to work as a debt collector are similar to those used for security officers. The approval to be deployed as a debt collector is not time-limited. However, the approval may be revoked or suspended should the Licensing Officer assess that the debt collector no longer meets the fit-and-proper criteria. We appreciate Mr Leon Perera's suggestion to provide opportunities for ex-offenders who may wish to join the industry. The Licensing Officer will consider their circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Mr Derrick Goh asked if there will be differentiation among the class licensees, based on their respective risk profiles. Given that class licensees are already regulated by other Government entities, they are assessed to pose lower law and order risk, compared to debt collection businesses that are not currently regulated. As such, we assess that there is no need to further differentiate the class licences for now. Nevertheless, we will monitor the situation and recalibrate the class licensing framework if the need arises. Mr Murali Pillai asked if there would be rules of engagement when debts are in dispute, including dealing with instances of debt collectors collecting debts from victims whose identities have been misused by impersonators to borrow money. During my opening speech, I mentioned that we will be introducing regulations to guide the conduct of debt collection businesses and their debt collectors. For example, debt collectors will be required to verify that the subject of the debt collection from whom they are attempting to collect a debt, indeed owes the debt, such as verifying the subject's identity against the signatory to a debt contract.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the state of the debt collection industry. As mentioned in my opening speech, we are not able to definitively assess the number of debt collection companies and debt collectors in Singapore because, currently, we do not have a regulatory framework. Mr Murali Pillai asked if the Bill will regulate the collection of both secured and unsecured debts. The Bill defines debt as a monetary obligation owed by a debtor; the collection of such debts, whether secured or unsecured, will be regulated. However, the collection of non-monetary assets, including those used to secure a debt, will not be regulated for now, as such activities have been assessed to pose minimal law and order risk. Nevertheless, the Police can still rely on existing legislation like the Penal Code or Protection from Harassment Act to take errant collectors of non-monetary assets to task. Mr Louis Chua, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the criteria used by the Licensing Officer to assess whether an applicant is fit and proper to be granted a licence to operate a debt collection business or approval to be deployed as a debt collector. As mentioned in my opening speech, the Licensing Officer will consider factors deemed relevant in assessing the applicant's propensity to engage in problematic debt collection conduct, such as past offences involving harassment or violence, as listed in the Second Schedule of the Bill. The Licensing Officer will also consider the severity of the offences and the length of time that has passed since the commission of the offence.”
“In order to reduce the regulatory burden and the costs for businesses, the licensing requirements for each type of debt collection entity will be calibrated based on the law and order risk posed by its debt collection activities. Specifically, under this Bill, a debt collection business must apply for and obtain a licence to carry out debt collection activities and be responsible for the conduct of its debt collectors. The debt collector must obtain an approval from the Police before they can carry out any debt collection activity. An already-regulated business that lends and collects money, such as a bank and a licensed or exempted moneylender, need not apply for an individual licence. Its in-house debt collectors will also not be required to apply for approval. I believe the introduction of this Bill will help to better regulate Singapore's debt collection industry and deter problematic debt collection conduct, while also preserving the public’s sense of safety and security. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Appealable decisions include the refusal to grant or renew a licence and the refusal to grant an approval for an individual to be deployed as a debt collector. The Minister's decision on an appeal is final. Unless otherwise directed by the Minister, the decision appealed against must be complied with until the determination of the appeal. Lastly, the Bill provides saving and transitional provisions to ensure that sufficient time is provided for existing debt collection businesses and debt collectors who wish to continue operating their debt collection business or acting as debt collectors to transit into the new regime. To conclude, this Bill seeks to introduce a regulatory framework to improve the conduct of the debt collection industry and better address disamenities that may arise from problematic debt collection conduct. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to conclude in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Debt collection is a legitimate economic activity that facilitates the fulfilment of financial obligations. However, debt collectors should not resort to extreme debt collection methods to collect debt from individuals or businesses, especially if these methods also affect the public's sense of safety and security. Hence, to prevent disamenities to members of the public, we will regulate the debt collection industry, set standards for entry into the industry and impose appropriate licensing requirements on debt collection businesses and debt collectors. This is to prevent problematic debt collection conduct. Meanwhile, we will also put in place appropriate levers to take errant debt collection businesses and debt collectors to task.”
“For repeat offenders, the punishment is a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. Clause 17 sets out offences for: one, individuals who act as debt collectors for debt collection businesses without approval; and two, individuals who act as debt collectors for entities carrying on already-regulated businesses where the entities are not class licensees or where the individuals are not employed by these entities. Clause 18 sets out the offence for licensees who deploy individuals to act as debt collectors where such deployment has not been approved. Offenders will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. Repeat offenders will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. The Bill provides powers for the Police to administer the regime. These include: one, powers related to the administering of the licensing and approval regimes; two, powers of entry into premises used for a debt collection business or already-regulated business and other powers following such entry; three, powers of investigations, including powers to require relevant persons to provide information or attend before the Police; and four, powers to appoint non-public officers as compliance officers who will assist with inspections of regulated parties. These powers are similar to those accorded to Police under other regulatory regimes, such as the Massage Establishments Act. The Bill allows persons, including applicants and licensees, to appeal to the Minister against an appealable decision made by the Licensing Officer.”
“Examples include individuals collecting personal loans owed to them, or retail companies with in-house credit control departments collecting debts owed to the company, and, for the avoidance of doubt, the conduct of such collections will still be governed by other laws. Entities, whose activities have been assessed to pose minimal law and order risk, will be excluded from the scope of the Bill. These entities are set out as excluded persons under Part 1 of the First Schedule. They are: one, individuals who conduct Court-administered debt collection activities, such as the Official Assignee or the Official Receiver; two, law practice entities and insolvency practitioners that are already regulated under the Legal Profession Act 1966 and the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, respectively; and three, entities which acquire a debt or debts through acquiring or merging with a business, other than a debt collection business, in a transaction that includes the transfers of accounts receivable, or through the seizure of accounts receivable under a security agreement. This list of excluded persons will be reviewed periodically. If it is assessed that there is a need to regulate any of the excluded persons in the future, we will do so. The Bill also introduces other offences and penalties. Clause 6 sets out offences for: one, the carrying on of a debt collection business without a valid licence; and two, the conduct of any debt collection activity by an already-regulated business without a valid class licence. Such offences will attract a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.”
“They are assessed to pose lower law and order risk, compared to debt collection businesses that are not currently regulated. Clauses 6(2), 14 and 15 set out a class licensing regime for already-regulated businesses whose core business includes lending and collecting money owed to their own business. They will be allowed to carry out debt collection activities if they comply with the class licensing conditions and they do not need to apply for an individual licence. This will minimise regulatory compliance costs. The list of regulated businesses is set out in Part 2 of the First Schedule. Under the class licensing regime, an already-regulated business need not apply for or obtain an individual licence to carry out debt collection. An individual who is employed by a class licensed debt collection business to collect debts will not need to be approved by the Licensing Officer. Businesses and individuals under the class licensing regime also need not be subject to screening by the Police to assess if they are fit and proper. Notwithstanding the above, clause 22 allows the Licensing Officer to take regulatory action against individual class licensees, including disapplying a class licence, if the Licensing Officer finds that the class licensee has contravened any class licensing conditions. This serves as a safeguard against class-licensed businesses that may engage in errant debt collection conduct. Persons and entities, other than debt collection businesses and already-regulated businesses that collect debts owed to themselves that were not acquired from another party, will not fall within the scope of the Bill.”
“We also intend to introduce regulations stating that a debt collector must not engage in certain conduct when carrying out debt collection activities, such as displaying or engaging in any behaviour that threatens the physical safety of the debtor or any other third parties like the debtor's family members, or affixing notices in relation to the debt on a property that does not belong to the debtor or at any public place. Let me give three examples of prohibited conduct when carrying out debt collection activities. First, a debt collector brandishing his fist to the debtor or threatening physical harm to a debtor or his or her family. Second, sending text or social media messages to the debtor threatening physical harm to the debtor or his or her family. Third, pasting a notice with the debtor's identity information on the door of the debtor's neighbours. For such cases, where a contravention of regulations is made out upon investigations, the offender will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. For repeat offenders, the punishment will increase to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Regulatory action can also be taken against the offender, including revocation or suspension of licence, or cancellation or suspension of approval under clauses 22, 24, 25 or 27. Debt collection conduct involving the commission of criminal offences and which do not fall under the regulations will continue to be dealt with under existing legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code. Next, we will be class licensing already-regulated businesses, such as licensed moneylenders and banks.”
“In assessing whether an individual is fit and proper, the Licensing Officer will take into consideration, among other things, prior offences committed by the individual that are relevant in determining the propensity of an individual to engage in problematic debt collection conduct. Generally, these could include offences involving harassment or violence. The severity of the offence and the length of time that has passed since the commission of the offence will also be considered. Applicants who fail to meet the fit and proper criteria will not be allowed to carry on a debt collection business or carry out debt collection activities. The fit and proper criteria will be set out in subsidiary legislation. The Police will also publish the criteria and requirements on their website. To deter debt collectors from engaging in problematic debt collection conduct and causing disamenities to members of the public, clauses 10 and 21 allow the Licensing Officer to impose conditions on licensed debt collection businesses and their approved debt collectors. Clause 45 allows the Minister to make regulations to guide the conduct and stipulate the duties and responsibilities of debt collection businesses and their debt collectors. Regulations that we intend to introduce include: one, requiring debt collectors to verify that the person from whom they are attempting to collect debt is, indeed, the debtor; as well as, two, prohibiting debt collectors from continuing to collect debt from a debtor, if the debtor has informed the debt collection business or collector by any verifiable means that the debt is in dispute or that the debtor has initiated a process to settle the debt through other means, which could include mediation or Court proceedings.”
“In order to reduce regulatory burden and costs for businesses, the licensing requirements for each type of entity will be calibrated based on the law and order risk posed by its debt collection activities. In assessing the law and order risk, we considered indicators, such as the number of harassment reports made against such businesses over the years. Clauses 6(1) and 7 to 13 set out a licensing regime for debt collection businesses which collect debt from a debtor either on behalf of another person; or where the businesses themselves had acquired the debt, for example, factoring companies that provide cash or financing to other companies in exchange for the debts owed to the companies. Clauses 17 to 21 set out an approval regime for the deployment of their debt collectors. The business models of such entities lend themselves to higher law and order risk. Under the licensing regime, a business must apply for and obtain a licence to carry out debt collection activities. An individual who is deployed as a debt collector by a licensed debt collection business must make a joint application with the debt collection business and must obtain an approval to be so deployed, before he or she can carry out any debt collection activity. There is no restriction on the number of debt collection businesses for which a debt collector can work. A debt collector can be granted multiple approvals to work for various debt collection businesses at any one point in time. All debt collection businesses, including their key appointment holders and the debt collectors, will be screened by the Police and must be assessed to be fit and proper before they are granted a licence or an approval.”
“For example, some debt collectors exclusively collect debt on behalf of others, whereas others operate in-house as part of a parent business, such as debt collectors employed by licensed moneylenders, banks and financial institutions. There is a wide spectrum of companies operating within Singapore's debt collection industry. At one end, there are debt collection companies which have consistently maintained high professional standards and pristine reputations. Some such companies service institutional clients, such as banks, which, in turn, hold them to similarly stringent and auditable requirements. At the other end of the spectrum, however, there are debt collection companies that operate within less-established corporate structures and are willing to adopt a wider range of debt collection practices. These companies mainly serve small-scale enterprises or individuals. Most of the companies that are featured in Police reports hail from this end of the spectrum, in part, due to their more aggressive debt collection practices and tendency to skirt around the boundaries of the law. To improve oversight of the debt collection industry, the Bill will regulate: one, debt collection businesses, which collect debt from a debtor either on behalf of another person or where the businesses themselves had acquired the debt and their debt collectors; and two, entities carrying on a business which is primarily in the lending of money and collecting of money owed to their own business and which are already regulated by other Government entities today, such as banks and licensed moneylenders. For this reading, I will refer to them subsequently as "already-regulated businesses".”
“However, we need to ask ourselves, can we do more to prevent such problematic debt collection conduct from occurring in the first place? Debt collection is a legitimate economic activity that facilitates the fulfilment of financial obligations. However, individuals and businesses should not be subjected to debt collection methods that clearly exceed what may be considered reasonable pressure for payment, especially if these methods also affect the public's sense of safety and security. There is thus a case to institute a regime to regulate the debt collection industry and to address problematic debt collection conduct. Such an approach is not new. In countries like the United States and Australia, legislative levers have been put in place to regulate the conduct of debt collectors and take action against problematic conduct. We seek to achieve two objectives through the introduction of the Debt Collection Bill. One, to regulate the debt collection industry and prevent problematic debt collection conduct by setting standards of entry into the industry and imposing appropriate licensing requirements on debt collection businesses and debt collectors; and two, to reduce problematic debt collection conduct by putting in place appropriate levers to take errant debt collection businesses and debt collectors to task. Today, businesses that carry out debt collection activities are not regulated. There is no legal definition for what constitutes a "debt collector", nor is there an enforceable legislative framework. Without a regulatory framework, it is challenging to definitively assess the number of debt collection companies and debt collectors in Singapore. This is partly due to the variety of corporate structures that debt collectors can use for their operations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The number of Police reports made against the conduct of debt collection businesses and debt collectors has remained high. From 2018 to 2021, an average of 367 reports were lodged each year. The reports were mainly against debt collection tactics aimed at pressuring debtors into payment by causing public embarrassment and inconvenience to them. Such tactics have attracted significant public attention and affected the public's sense of safety and security. Let me share two examples. In 2019, a debt collector made multiple visits to a debtor's home and workplace within a month to collect a debt. On three occasions, he wore a traditional Chinese funeral outfit to the debtor's workplace, while carrying accessories, including a banner with the debtor's face, a funeral lantern and incense paper, and engaged in actions, such as shouting loudly, chanting, kneeling and blowing a whistle. He refused to leave even when told that the debtor was not present. On one such occasion, he even shouted at the debtor's colleague. Some Members might also recall that back in 2015, six debt collectors visited a debtor at a food stall in Funan Mall to collect a debt. They unfurled a large banner stating that debt recovery was in process and proceeded to disrupt the stall's business, including harassing the staff and damaging the stall's equipment. Such debt collection conduct is unacceptable and causes unnecessary alarm to members of the public. The debt collectors in both cases were successfully taken to task under existing legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code.”
“I thank the Member for her question. In most situations, our Police officers are able to speak in the vernacular. So, I think for the situation that she shared, I believe the Police will be able to explain the process in the vernacular language that the accused person is comfortable with so that the suspect is able to comprehend and understand what is necessary from him or her. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I thank the Member for her questions. On the first part, with regard to individuals who are above 16 years old, where the Police assessed that the individual may not have the mental capacity to give consent, the Police will err on the side of caution and not take an invasive blood sample. On the second question, I understand where the Member is coming from. We have tried to make the process as straightforward and as simple as possible. They only need to fill up an online form, fill in the case number and as such. That is as simplified as we can make. But I understand where the Member is coming from, that anything that is online may make it difficult for certain groups of individuals. I would like to share that the Police will be able to explain this process to the vulnerable person to enable them to get onto this process. But if there is difficulty that they face, they can raise it with us and we will see how to help them apply for their information to be removed.”
“Sorry, he had a second question. On Member's second question, I would like to share that under CLTPA as well as the Misuse of Drugs Act, there are clauses that specify with regards to the taking of photographs, finger impressions, body samples, so on and so forth as well as with regards to the retention of these photographs, finger impressions as well as body samples. As such, because they are already explicitly stated in the CLTPA as well as the MDA, we do not see a need for us to consolidate them under the RCA.”
“I thank the Member for his clarifications. I would like to reiterate that what I meant about the procedure to obtain consent is that the accused will be asked to sign a form, which will state the consequences of refusing to provide consent. I hope that answers his question.”
“Mr Pritam Singh's fourth question was to ask for the cost of taking a DNA sample. Police officers perform a variety of duties. It is not possible to ascertain the cost of every individual isolated act. If we wanted to identify the cost, technically, one will have to assess the number of officers involved, the time cost based on their salaries and so on and many other factors to do this exercise. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I hope I have addressed Members' concerns. This Bill will enable our law enforcement agencies to carry out their duties more effectively and to continue to keep Singapore safe and secure. I thank Members for their valuable suggestions and support for this Bill. With that, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Mr Singh wanted to know what will happen if an officer accesses information without authorisation under this Bill. When there is unauthorised access, action will be taken. This could include criminal charges being brought. Members will be aware that in the past, officers have been charged in Court for unauthorised access or use of information. Most recently, Members may have seen media reports of two former prison officers who had been charged for unauthorised use of inmate information. Both were imprisoned. One of the cases was in the news two days ago. If any person feels that his information has been misused, he can lodge a complaint and the complaint will be investigated. Action will be taken if the complaint is found to be substantiated. Mr Singh's second question relates to section 13F(2)(d) of the current RCA. The provision for such other purposes as may be prescribed is not new. It is an existing provision under the current RCA. This provision allows the Ministry to prescribe additional uses of DNA information via subsidiary legislation. Such subsidiary legislation has to be published in the Gazette and presented to Parliament. Mr Singh's third question is on how officers may decide whether to take DNA. Officers on the ground will have to be given the discretion, exercise their judgement whether to take the DNA for the investigations. It is not possible to prescribe precisely when they should and should not take DNA in future, because there are thousands of different situations. What the law can do is to set out the parameters, the framework for the exercise of the powers and that is what we are doing. Police will assess the nature of the crime, the evidence and whether to collect DNA information even if the offence is registrable or eligible.”
“An individual granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal has not been granted a full acquittal on the charge and the Public Prosecutor may still institute proceedings against the accused on the charge. This may occur, for example, where an accused has absconded. Thus, his information should not be removed from the database as it is still required for investigations or prosecution. Persons who are warned are also not equivalent to persons who have been acquitted. They were warned because investigations revealed that they were involved in the commission of the offence, but the Public Prosecutor has decided not to prosecute them in court. Mr Patrick Tay also asked about the retention of information for individuals whose offences have been rendered spent. Individuals who have their offences rendered spent are not equivalent to individuals who are acquitted or discharged. The significance of a spent conviction is that the individual will no longer have a criminal record for the spent offence. This facilitates his rehabilitation and re-integration, by removing stigma associated with a criminal record. On the other hand, his identifying information and DNA information will continue to be retained by the Police, as this information may be vital for solving future crimes. Mr Pritam Singh had asked four questions. His first question was on safeguarding the DNA database and access to it. I had set out, in my Second Reading speech, what the safeguards are. Only authorised individuals are allowed to access the DNA database. All access is logged and recorded and there will be an audit trail to detect any data access. The DNA information is stored on a standalone, secured network to prevent unauthorised access.”
“The purpose of the database is to assist in crime-solving. When the acquitted accused applies to have his information removed, we will remove it except under two circumstances. First, where the information is relevant for another ongoing investigation or prosecution; and second, where it is in the interests of the security of Singapore to retain the individual’s data. Subject to that, it is in society’s interests that there is a larger database of DNA – the DNA has to be collected and retained in acceptable ways. That was our rationale. If acquitted persons want their DNA to be removed, they can apply to do so. Mr Derrick Goh asked about the rationale for the default removal of the information of suspects who are found not to be involved in the commission of the crime, while volunteers need to apply for the removal of their information. Upon arrest, suspects would have been compelled to provide their DNA information, and failure to do so without reasonable excuse is an offence. So, when we find out later that he is not involved in the crime, it would only be right that we remove his DNA information which we had acquired coercively. On the other hand, volunteers provide their information on a voluntary basis, and hence it is reasonable for their data to remain in the database until they apply to remove it. Mr Louis Ng, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Patrick Tay asked whether individuals who are granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal or given a stern warning can apply for their information to be removed. These individuals will not be allowed to apply for their information to be removed.”
“This provision allows the Ministry to prescribe additional uses for DNA information via subsidiary legislation and such subsidiary legislation has to be published in the Gazette and presented to Parliament. Next, I will talk about the removal of information. Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Denise Phua and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the process to apply for the removal of information. One only has to apply to the Registrar online, with his particulars and case details. The Registrar will review the application and provide an official reply within 30 days. The details of the application process will be made available on SPF’s website in due course. Mr Louis Ng also asked whether individuals would be told that their information is no longer sensitive so that they may re-apply to the Registrar to remove their information from the databases and how the prescribed timelines apply to these individuals. When the Registrar rejects an individual’s application to remove his information from the database, the Registrar will notify the applicant and state the reasons for the rejection. If his data has been retained because there is an ongoing prosecution or investigation, the individual should be aware when these are concluded, such that he may re-apply for expungement. Where his data is retained due to national security concerns, we will not be able to inform him when these concerns no longer exist. If he disagrees with the decision of the Registrar, he can appeal to the Reviewing Tribunal. Even if the Reviewing Tribunal dismisses the appeal, the individual may re-apply for removal at any time. Moving on to the removal of information from the database. Mr Murali Pillai asked why we require acquitted accused to apply for their information to be removed.”