Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 36.
“If the amendment in this Bill can reduce the acrimony and emotional toll on the divorcing family, I support that rationale fully. Earlier, the Minister of State explained in some detail how the DMA provisions will work. Nevertheless, I wish to seek two clarifications about this change. First, to what extent can the parties override the traditional grounds for divorce? The new fact of mutual agreement broadens the possibility of divorce beyond the conventional grounds. For the conventional grounds, the law imposes time requirements which need to be satisfied. For instance, for adultery and unreasonable behaviour, the Women's Charter has always required that the offended spouse must not have continued to live with the offending spouse for more than six months after the last incident. This is to show that the offended spouse finds it unreasonable to continue living with such behaviour from the offending spouse. As for the fact of desertion, the offending spouse must have abandoned the other party for a continuous period of two years or more. As for using separation as a fact of divorce, the period required is that either of the spouses have lived apart for at least four years, or for at least three years where the other spouse consents to the divorce. With the introduction of DMA, it seems to me that parties can agree to divorce where the situations could have come under the traditional grounds but the usual timeframes have not been met. For instance, if the spouses have been living apart, they can agree to divorce if they have been separated for much shorter periods than three years; say, for just six months.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer with a firm that practises family law; however, the contents of this speech reflect my own views on the Bill. In this debate, I wish to make a few comments on the provisions relating to divorce, in particular, the introduction of a provision allowing divorce by mutual agreement or DMA. Clause 29 of the Bill introduces a new fact that can be relied upon to file for a divorce: that the marriage has broken down due to the spouses' agreeing that there has been an irretrievable breakdown. The new section 95A will add this new fact to the existing facts for divorce which centre around adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion and separation. In order to rely on this new fact, the spouses must enter into an agreement in writing, stating their reasons for concluding that the marriage has broken down, what efforts they have made to reconcile and what considerations they have given to the arrangements concerning their financial affairs and any child of the marriage. Sir, in principle, I am supportive of the inclusion of DMA. This will empower the parties to a marriage to decide for themselves whether their marriage has failed, as they are probably the best-placed parties to assess whether they can continue to maintain the marriage. Currently, the potentially acrimonious nature of divorce proceedings can be traumatic. To illustrate, in my past professional work, I have seen how the children of the marriage can be pressured by one parent to give evidence against the other parent in a bid to prove that the other parent was an unreasonable or irresponsible person. The scars on the family from divorce are undeniable.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister for Health regarding the COVID-19 statistics that he cited earlier and also, in general, statistics reported by the Government. I have come across cases of individuals who did self-testing by ART and, they were positive. But they did not report themselves to the authorities or to any clinics. With home recovery now as the default response to any positive COVID-19 test, does Minister agree that the risk of unreported cases is, actually, quite high? And to that extent, we need to be quite careful when we look at the official statistics recorded by the Ministry.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister regarding the statutory retirement age. Earlier, he mentioned that the consensus among the tripartite partners was that this was still necessary on the statute books as it serves as a floor to protect workers. My question is that most, if not all, employment contracts, as I have mentioned in my speech, do have a termination clause where either the employer or the employee can give notice of a short period, one to two months, to stop the employment relationship and no reasons need to be given. And if notice is not sufficient, payment in lieu can be made in accordance with that clause. So, would we not agree that, actually, that clause can be exercised at any age of the employee? To that extent, my question is how far does having a statutory retirement age in that sense undermine the operation of that clause which is in the contract?”
“If this age limit is further increased to 21, this would be even more significant. Expanding this scheme is not straightforward. Without a sufficient pool of Appropriate Adults, interviews will be delayed until an Appropriate Adult is available. This could add more strain on the person who is being investigated. For the second question, I would like to share with Ms Sylvia Lim that we take every investigation seriously. We train our officers to better understand the behavioural component, the needs of the suspect, as well as how we can facilitate the interviews, all in the name of doing it fairly and professionally. So, if there is a need for us to reach out to the family members, we will do so.”
“Thank you, Sir. For special needs suspects, the Minister of State mentioned that there are Appropriate Adults also available to help vulnerable adults. Some of the special needs suspects may actually be non-verbal or non-communicative and perhaps only the family members understand what he or she is trying to say. So, I would like to ask whether law enforcement agencies do allow family members to assist in the investigation process so that the communication can be better understood? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. In fact, indeed, as I have shared earlier, we are reviewing it and as such, we will announce the outcome of the review in the next few months. We take note of the Member's view on the CYPA. I want to assure the Member this is something that we have also been looking at and we also want to make sure we facilitate this. Nevertheless, as I have shared with the House earlier, there are constraints that we are facing with regard to the Appropriate Adult Scheme because essentially, the Appropriate Adults are volunteers. We will need more volunteers to support the expansion to cover more young suspects. In order for them to come on board, we need to train them. We also need to provide face-to-face training to ensure that the volunteers are well-equipped to perform their roles. During this current pandemic, there are constraints on conducting face-to-face training due to the safe distancing measures. Hence, it is not easy to ramp up the pool of Appropriate Adults quickly. Currently, we have about 331 volunteers for the AAYS and 320 volunteers for the AAPMD. As an estimate, if we expand the AAYS to cover suspects aged 16 and 17, we will need to increase the pool of volunteers to double of what we have today.”
“Earlier, the Minister of State made extensive comments about the case of Justin Lee. Justin Lee was my resident and I would like to clarify that I understand from his family that the Coroner's findings into his death have not been issued yet. Therefore, I am reserving any questions that I may have until after the findings have been issued. Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question on the cut-off age for protection of young persons under investigation. Earlier, the Minister of State specifically mentioned the Appropriate Adult Scheme and that the cut-off age of 16 years had been announced in 2017, so, everyone should be clear about that. But at the same time, I think he will acknowledge that in 2019, we did have a change in our CYPA, the Children and Young Persons Act. We amended the definition of "child" to extend the cut-off age to 18. Does MHA then not accept the fact that the spirit of that would require all measures protecting young suspects to have a cut-off age of 18 instead of 16? We can understand that it may need to be phased in and so on but, at the very least, does the Ministry not agree that we must commit to moving all these protections, whether legal or procedural, to the cut-off age of 18, in line with the amendment to the CYPA on the definition of "child"? Mr Speaker, may I have your leave to ask one question about special needs suspects?”
“Society could very well be better off if they did so. What I am advocating is that instead of having a decision forced on them at a certain age, we empower our seniors to make their own choice in this matter. In closing, it will be appropriate to quote from a Singaporean who has advocated that there be no retirement age, none other than our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 2010, on the 30th Anniversary of the Singapore National Employers Federation, Mr Lee spoke at a dialogue with senior managers, Government officials and unionists. He told them that there should be no retirement age for workers. He called on older workers to change their mindsets and to continue working, even if for less pay or for a younger boss. He said, and I quote, "Many of our workers have a preferred retirement and then they die early. If you start saying, 'Oh, I am old', and you start reading novels and playing golf or playing chess, well, you are on the way down", unquote. Sir, not many of us would dare to put it in such stark terms but there is a bigger point for society as a whole. If we are truly non-ageist, we should leave retirement and re-employment ages to choices made by individuals. As a safety net, we should enact an anti-discrimination law that prohibits employment decisions based on age. Sir, even as I support this Bill, I ask the Government to reconsider this issue of legislating the retirement and re-employment ages.”
“Those with health problems may not be able to work when they reach 60 years old while others can go on for much longer. Finally, it has been said in certain quarters that removing the retirement and re-employment ages would disadvantage workers and give the upper hand to employers. To this, I am not clear how far having a prescribed minimum retirement age protects the worker from being dismissed on account of age. Our labour market is one of the freest in the world with hiring and dismissal happening efficiently. Most employment contracts have a termination clause with either employer or employee being able to walk away from the contract by giving just one or two months' notice or payment in lieu of notice. No reasons need to be given for the termination of service in such situations. Sir, I am fortified in arguing for a removal of the prescribed retirement and re-employment ages as there is now some certainty that workplace guidelines issued by the Tripartite partners will have the force of law. This change in policy has the potential to give employees protection against ageism in the workplace. At this year's National Day Rally, the Prime Minister announced that workplace anti-discrimination guidelines would be enshrined into law. The Workers' Party has argued for anti-discrimination legislation previously and we welcome this announcement. We believe that the proposed law should proscribe discrimination based on age and we look forward to the opportunity to contribute to that debate. Sir, in making these points, I wish to clarify that I am not advocating that everyone works till they drop dead. To most people, that would not be a life well-lived. Seniors may well decide to reprioritise their time and devote themselves to their grandchildren or charitable causes.”
“7 years for women. These ages are merely averages and do not take into account many who live far longer. To illustrate how longevity impacts retirement decisions, I would like to share a conversation I had some months ago with a cousin of mine, a retired engineer now in his mid-80s. He shared that when he and his wife retired 30 years ago, they had no idea that they would live this long. He lamented that had they known that they still had so many more years to go, they would have worked longer. If an octogenarian can reflect on his life span in this manner today, what about us or younger cohorts who are likely to live longer? Even when the retirement age goes up to 65, the prospect of having insufficient savings to fund another 30 years of living expenses and medical costs is real. Second, we have a national manpower shortage. We often hear that foreign manpower is needed to supplement our local workforce. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us a very painful lesson about how we have managed our low-wage foreign workers. Poor conditions in our crowded foreign worker dormitories have contributed to the spread of the virus. The Government mantra has always been that Singapore needs to continue improving productivity instead of relying on increases in labour inputs. In our push towards leveraging on technology, it is likely that more jobs in different sectors will be redesigned to be less reliant on physical strength, making them suitable for senior workers to fill. Third, we must ask whether having a prescribed minimum retirement or re-employment age is sensible for the parties concerned. The fact is that the universe of employees is very diverse. Each person ages at a different rate.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill. Sir, in view of longer life spans and more golden years, allowing an individual to work to an older age is a sensible and responsible thing to do. For the individual, it enhances financial security, independence and for some, provides a sense of purpose. This also benefits society as active seniors are more able to provide for themselves. This would enable the state Budget to be allocated to other areas of need. The intent of this Bill as I understand it is to enable the Government to raise the minimum retirement age and re-employment ages by the year 2030. The minimum retirement age will go up progressively from 62 to 65 while the re-employment age will be raised progressively from 67 to 70. This is a step in the right direction, which I support. However, Sir, if we truly believe in active ageing, it is worth reviewing whether there should be a prescribed minimum retirement age at all. At the outset, I would note that there are many employees in the private sector who are not subject to a mandatory retirement age. The prescribed retirement age applies more to the public sector and unionised employees. However, continuing to have a minimum retirement age set out in law has a signalling effect on society as to the value workers above that age. This needs serious reconsideration. Singapore should review its stance. I would like to highlight four points in support of removing the prescribed minimum retirement age and re-employment age. First, life expectancy in Singapore has increased by approximately three years every 10 years. According to a 2019 Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review, Singaporeans' life expectancy is among the highest in the world at 81.4 years for men and 85.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister concerning whether he has any interim data to share on the customers who have been affected by the exit of the independent retailers? What I mean is, since the exit of iSwitch and others, their customers would have to make certain decisions. From those announcements till now, can Minister share whether most customers who are displaced have decided to stay with SP for time being or have they switched to the larger retailers who are also generators called gen-tailers? Or have they actually taken the plunge to go with another independent retailer? I wonder if he has that data.”
“This could be motivated by a desire to preserve the dignity of a formal leader, but could also be motivated by less noble reasons, for example, to cover up a death deliberately caused to a political opponent. We cannot dismiss this possibility and it is certainly not far-fetched that political adversaries could be killed through poisoning or other nefarious means. The likelihood of the death of a foreign leader occurring in Singapore is not low as Singapore is a noted destination for medical treatment. It goes without saying that when a death occurs in Singapore, important evidence surrounding the death may well be located in Singapore. Furthermore, such evidence may not be immediately available after the death as the Police may need time to uncover it. Thus, there are risks associated with a quick handover of records and evidence to the foreign state. Sir, I note that under the Bill, the Minister retains the discretion whether or not to issue the certificate to release the body to a requesting foreign state. He can order investigations in Singapore to continue if he believes it to be in the public interest to do so. He can also subsequently revoke an earlier certificate for release. These are important provisions. As a member of the international community, we have a part to play to ensure that history is accurately recorded and that the world is not misled by fake news about the death of national leaders and officials. The Minister will need to be alive to this risk, even as he will likely face pressure from the requesting foreign state.”
“First, where the deceased had sustained an injury, contracted a disease or suffered a condition outside Singapore that appears to have caused the death; or, second, where the deceased person was or formerly was a head of state, head of government, government minister, government official or spouse or child of these persons or a diplomatic agent of a foreign state. If the Minister sees it fit to issue such a certificate for the release of the body of the deceased, then all investigations into the death must stop. A post-mortem should not be carried out and any Coroner's Inquiry into the death should cease. According to the media release by MinLaw on 13 September, one of the reasons is that the foreign state may wish to conduct its own post-mortem examination on the citizen or resident who happened to die in Singapore after sustaining an injury, contracting a disease or suffering a condition outside of Singapore. I have two observations to make on this. First, it should be noted that the proposed section 17A phrases the conditions of (a)(i) and (a)(ii) as alternatives. So, for example, if the deceased happens to be an incumbent or a former head of government, it is not necessary that the deceased should have sustained an injury or illness outside of Singapore that appeared to lead to his death. The deceased's very status as a current or former head of government is enough to bring up such a case within the new regime even if the cause of death has no overseas nexus. Secondly, there could well be circumstances where a foreign state could request the return of the body of a deceased government official because it does not want a post-mortem or inquiry to be done by an independent party.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to make two changes to the investigations of deaths that are defined as reportable. I have concerns about both provisions and would like the Ministry's clarifications. First, it is proposed by clause 2 that section 12 be amended to make the viewing of the body by the Coroner optional. That is, when the Coroner is conducting his preliminary investigations into a reportable death, he can decide not to view the body at all. As for the rationale for this change, it was stated in the MinLaw release that this would "expedite the process of the body to the family and will also save resources for the Police, the Health Sciences Authority and the Coroner". Sir, it would thus appear that the move to make viewing of the body optional is motivated, at least in part, by resource constraints. However, we must ask, to what extent will this change result in any compromise of investigations of deaths? Despite what the Minister said earlier, it is not clear, to me at least, on what basis or the kinds of cases that are appropriate for a Coroner to decide that viewing of the body is not required. Could the Minister please elaborate further on how the Coroner would be supported to ensure that he or she does not inadvertently miss or overlook important evidence that further investigations into the death may be warranted? The second change brought about by this Bill is to give the Minister for Law the power to issue a certificate for the release of the body of a deceased person at the request of a foreign state. Clause 3 of the Bill will introduce a new section 17A to the Act, to provide that if a foreign state has requested release of the body of a deceased in Singapore, then the Minister can consider issuing such a certificate in two situations.”
“To attract able people to join the industry, the current efforts to improve the image and working conditions should continue. Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned the Security Industry Transformation Map (ITM) announced in 2018. This ITM has identified key strategies which I agree have the potential to enhance the industry's image and capabilities. For instance, the concerted push towards adopting technology in operations has the potential to both improve job satisfaction and productivity, as well as to reduce manpower needs and long working hours for security officers. Madam, as these initiatives are still being rolled out, teething problems are expected. For instance, I have observed instances of long and angry queues at the condominiums' entrances when new security systems are installed, with the security officers being the subject of verbal abuse. On this front, I would urge managers of premises to work with security providers to ensure smooth rollouts of new systems and thereby to minimise stress on security officers. Members of the public, too, can play their part by exercising patience and remembering that the officers are simply trying to do their jobs.”
“Madam, whether security officers are adequately trained and suitably equipped for their tasks is an important background factor which will affect the way members of the public interact with them. If they do not have adequate training, or their working environment is not conducive, altercations between them and the public are quite likely to take place. To this end, I would stress that it is not just the hard skills that are required, for example, knowing what the laws are or the extent of a security officer's powers. It is equally necessary that security officers have training in soft skills, to be able to handle difficult people, use tactful language and so on. To take an example, security officers in shopping malls may actually spend more time on their shifts dealing with public enquiries about where certain facilities like toilets are located, rather than with the prevention of crime. People skills are thus critical. At the same time, being able to attract able persons to join the industry has not been easy. From my observations, there is a heavy reliance on Malaysians to fill security positions. In my former capacity as a Polytechnic lecturer, I had conducted some research into perceptions of Singaporean security officers on their work prospects. At that time, about 15 years ago, some security officers told me that they will not encourage their children to enter the industry, mainly due to the long hours involved. To this end, I note that the situation has improved somewhat. In answer to my Parliamentary Question in July this year, MOM reiterated that the overtime hours for security officers have come down, even if the proportion of full-time security officers who still did overtime each month for last year was still nearly eight out of 10 officers, or 80%.”
“By enacting these specific offences, a public signal is being sent that conduct such as obstructing, abusing or harassing security officers are serious offences that will be punished accordingly. As for the calibration of punishments, I note that the punishments in the proposed sections 17A and B are set somewhere between the punishments for similar conduct against public officers and that against ordinary citizens. Thus, for instance, the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a security officer in the course of his duty will attract imprisonment of up to five years, between the maximum jail terms in the Penal Code for similar conduct against a public servant which attracts seven years and that against ordinary citizens which attracts three years. I believe this is an appropriate approach for the offences of using criminal force and voluntarily causing hurt to security officers. However, Madam, in order to ensure that this law will indeed improve outcomes for the industry and for the public, it must be accompanied by appropriate levels of training and the ability to attract able persons into the sector. For the last few decades, there has been much outsourcing of work previously done by the Police to the Auxiliary Police and to private security. Today, security officers are expected to do much more than just guard the entrances of factories or shopping malls in a balmy environment. Today, security officers may be deployed to work in higher intensity conditions such as event security, crowd control and even to assist in search of persons. Earlier, the Minister of State also mentioned that they are deployed in enforcing COVID-19-related safe management measures, with high interactions with the public.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, for a long time, security officers have had to operate in a difficult working environment. While they are tasked to protect property and persons, they are not adequately protected by the law in executing their duties. They are at risk when confronting hostile members of the public and can be unfairly targeted for simply carrying out the instructions of premise owners, instructions which could be unpopular or badly thought-through. The diverse profile of security officers in the industry, ranging from the young to the elderly, is an added concern. In 2019, the Government pushed ahead to raise standards of conduct among security officers by introducing a change to the Private Security Industry (Conduct) Regulations. The change made it a criminal offence for security officers to be potentially negligent while on duty, such as to fall asleep or to not respond promptly to certain calls for assistance. If convicted of such an offence, an officer could be fined up to $2,000 or jailed for up to three months, or both. While I understood the rationale behind the change, I raised concerns in Parliament at that time. I was concerned about whether a strict implementation of the legislation would be fair, given the diverse profiles of security officers and varying resources available to them at their deployment sites. Madam, in that regard, I welcome the changes brought by this Bill which will give security officers greater confidence on the ground. The key change brought about by this Bill is in clause 3, which introduces various new offences to criminalise acts of obstruction and abuse of security officers while on duty.”
“Sir, to that end, the Ministry's clarifications on the changes being made by clauses 12 and 13 would be useful for future cases.”
“It, therefore, seems to me that there will now be a blurring of the lines between sections 177 and 182, and the rationale for this change is not compelling. Yet another blurring may be caused by clause 13, which amends section 186 of the Penal Code. Section 186 deals with "Obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions". Under clause 13, a new subsubsection (2) will be added, to state that obstructing a public servant may be caused other than by use of physical means or threatening language. A new illustration is introduced, where a group of SCDF paramedics is attending to a case of heart attack in a high-rise block, intending to use the lift to the 30th floor; the paramedics are then told by the offender that the lift is out of order, which is not true, causing them to take the stairs. This new illustration confirms that section 186 too will be expanded to cover the giving of false information. There now appears to be yet another overlap between offences, in that giving false information could come within section 177 and also within section 186. How will the Police decide which section to charge a person under? Sir, in studying this matter, I note that under section 177, the offender must have been under a legal duty to give information, whereas under section 186, the offender need not have been under such a duty. Giving false information to a public servant when one is under a legal duty to give information is arguably more serious than when one is not under such a duty. This raises the additional question of why the maximum jail term under section 186 is now being brought to the same level as section 177, being raised from three months to six months, when there is a difference in culpability.”
“In giving his judgment in the case, as noted by the Minister of State earlier, the Chief Justice ruled that section 182 did not cover a situation where the false information simply led to a public servant being inefficient in exercising his lawful powers to investigate the case. He ruled that section 182 was meant to cover situations where the offender intended or knew that the false information would likely lead the public servant to abuse or misuse his powers, or to improperly omit to use lawful powers. Such scenarios would include false statements that lead to a wrongful arrest, or which subject innocent persons to annoyance. The Chief Justice made clear that false information leading to a public servant simply being inefficient in carrying out his lawful duties did not come under section 182. Sir, while clause 12 of this Bill is clearly intended to plug that gap, what is notable about Chua's case is that the offender was not let off scot-free, but was convicted of a simpler offence of furnishing false information to a public servant, under section 177 of the Penal Code. That being the case, I wonder why it is necessary to amend section 182 and, in particular, to add another illustration (d) to capture the situation where false information simply leads to an inefficient use of Police resources. Such conduct is already caught by section 177. In addition, the sub-heading or marginal note to section 182 is not being amended, so it will still read "False information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person". This could result in some misunderstanding by the public as to the scope of the section.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer in the criminal law practice. Sir, the rationale for some of the key amendments was previously discussed in the House in March, during the Ministerial Statement on the Review of the Sentencing Framework for Sexual and Hurt Offences. Earlier, in his Second Reading speech, the Minister reiterated the Government's position as well. Today, I wish to instead raise some reservations about another aspect of the Bill: the changes to the offences involving giving false information to public servants or obstructing them in their duty. Overall, it appears to me that the changes in the Bill will result in a blurring of the distinctions between different offences and I am not clear as to why this is necessary or desirable. Let me explain. Under clause 12, the scope of the offence under section 182 of the Penal Code will be expanded. Section 182 deals with the offence of giving false information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. According to the Explanatory Note to the Bill and confirmed by the Minister of State earlier as well, section 182 is being amended in light of the High Court decision this year in Public Prosecutor v Chua Wen Hao. Sir, in that case, the offender falsely told Police that he did not know the identity of the person who had set fire to certain property belonging to a hotel. This denial led the Police to spend nearly 22 man-hours on investigations to establish the identity of the culprit.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for National Development. The first is, besides clawing back the grants that were wrongly paid, HDB has stated that it would also take enforcement action against those who have suppressed material information. So, I would like the Minister to confirm whether HDB, by saying this, accepts that there could be some cases where the applicant did not act deliberately but there could have been some genuine misunderstanding about the eligibility criteria or the information that needed to be provided. That is the first question. My second question: HDB has stated that AGO has asked HDB to report back on the remaining 1,055 cases which were picked up by data analysis which could have involved wrongful payment of grants. Could the Minister tell the House how long does HDB expect to take to finish these investigations and confirm that the Ministry will make the findings public as well?”
“One of the moments that moved me greatly was the victory ceremony for a relatively new event in swimming – the four by 100m mixed medley relay. It was so refreshing to see the teams of four swimmers at the victory podium – two men and two women – showing the world the glory that their combined effort had brought to their countries. Each of them, man, and woman, was equally critical in achieving the team's success. That is the spirit in which the whole of society can collaborate in the national interest.”
“Such masculine traits were to be contrasted with the Femininity Index which valued caring for others and the quality of life. Singapore was ranked in the middle of this scale. The study found that a higher proportion of women in parliament was strongly co-related with a country's wealth but also with a low score on the Masculinity Index. Three Nordic countries – Norway, Finland and Sweden – exemplify this. Madam, it stands to reason that a society with a culture of gender equality will be more conducive to women being empowered to make free choices, including the choice to devote oneself to political service. For instance, more equal sharing of childcare and eldercare responsibilities will ease decision-making for women. Wage levels should be comparable for equivalent work, so that it may make economic sense for husbands to decide to work part-time or not at all. Flexible work arrangements will unlock possibilities. The list goes on. Singapore should continue in this direction if we wish to see sustained streams of women contributing to their full potential, including those who will step forward to serve as political candidates, Members of Parliament and Ministers. In order to attract more women into political leadership, we need all segments of society to work together to build a gender-equal ecosystem. Government, employers, employees, business and family must buy-in to this vision, in order that our wives, mothers and daughters can fulfil their aspirations and contribute to public life if they wish to. Madam, over the weekend, some of us might have been fixated with watching world-class athletes compete at the Tokyo Olympics.”
“It is thus relevant to ask whether a society that nurtures a gender-neutral culture will organically see more women in politics. Gender equality assessments across countries are regularly done, and there are reports and rankings of gender gaps worldwide. For instance, in March this year, the World Bank published the Global Gender Gap Report 2021. This report assesses gender gaps in countries across four fields – political empowerment, economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, and health and survival. Of all the four fields assessed, political empowerment is the one with the largest gender gap worldwide. If one looks at the top 10 countries deemed to be the most gender neutral, one sees that eight out of these 10 are also in the top 25 for female representation in their parliaments. These include the usual suspects such as the Nordic countries, as well as New Zealand, Namibia and Rwanda. According to this gender gap assessment, Singapore was 54th globally, coincidentally the same ranking we received on the percentage of female representation in Parliament. An academic study of 36 European countries was published last year which attempted to test certain hypotheses as to why countries might have higher or lower percentages of women in their parliaments. The study tested two hypotheses – the first was whether higher percentages of women parliamentarians were found in richer countries measured by GDP per capita; the second was whether the proportion of women parliamentarians was co-related with the country's character as measured on a Masculinity Index. The Masculinity Index was determined based on a variety of factors such as: the importance of money, high economic growth as a priority, men earning more than women and traditional family structures.”
“As for the Progress Singapore Party, they fielded about 21% of female candidates and, after Polling Day, two Non-Constituency Members of Parliament were elected – one man and one woman. At the decision-making levels of the parties, the Central Executive Committees (CECs) of both the PAP and the WP are still male-dominated, but to different degrees at the moment. The PAP has three female CEC members out of 18, making up about 17%. The WP CEC has four women out of 14, making up 29%; though this is a vast improvement from the 14% we had previously, I am most mindful that this gain is precarious and can easily unravel. The PSP has five women out of a 14-member CEC, a healthy 36%. When it comes to the Cabinet, we see three female Ministers out of 20, which is 15%. It seems to me that all political parties can put in more effort to try to raise the levels of female participation in leadership. I am cautiously optimistic that we may not need to adopt even voluntary quotas to improve the situation. As has happened in other countries, the element of competition amongst political parties in Singapore will also result in the need for parties to field more women candidates and promote women leadership. The electorate will be watching us. However, given the social context, it will not be an easy slog unless the whole of society embraces policies which make it conducive for women to step up to the political forefront. I now turn to the relevance of gender equality in society to fostering increased female participation in politics. Madam, the Motion posits that there is a link between gender equality and the empowerment of women to freely realise their full potential.”
“Several female politicians shared that their experience with legal quotas had not been good. Their national elections had proportional representation systems of affirmative action for women. Political parties would put up lists of female candidates, who would be assured of entering Parliament depending on their party’s overall vote share at the polls. Unfortunately, in some instances, women who wished to be prioritised on the list were subjugated to the whimsical decision-making of their male party leaders, including acceding to humiliating demands. We should not go down this route of legal quotas. On the other hand, more countries seem to have had sustainable success with soft targets or aspirational quotas. These voluntary targets serve as benchmarks to aim towards, without being overly rigid in application. Some countries saw political parties voluntarily setting party quotas, promising the electorate that they would field at least a certain percentage of women candidates. This happened due to political competition, as political parties jostled to gain support from a more demanding electorate and, especially, from female voters. Although political parties in Singapore have not announced any voluntary quotas of women candidates, my observation is that the parties are, indeed, conscious of the need to field at least a minimum proportion of women. Let me cite some numbers. If we look at the last General Election, on the ruling party side, nearly 27% of the candidates were women, while on the Workers’ Party side, nearly 24% were women. After Polling Day, female PAP Members of Parliament formed about 29% of PAP Members of Parliament, while female WP Members of Parliament formed 30% of WP Members of Parliament.”
“You are one step closer to prison". I consider myself fortunate. Other women are not so free. Time and again, we find potential female candidates who are unable to freely decide whether to stand as candidates, compared to males who seem to have fewer inhibitions. I believe the Workers’ Party is not unique in this experience. Women, especially those with young children, are burdened with worry and even guilt, wanting to be there for their families at key moments of their children’s development. The expectations of family members, particularly parents and parents-in-law, add more pressure to mothers. Employers, too, may doubt a working mother’s ability to cope with her work and political responsibilities as well. I do not notice such pressure and apprehension in my dealings with potential male candidates. I should clarify, at this point, that I am not saying that a woman who decides that her family is the most important thing to her is somehow under-achieving or under-contributing. Far from it. What I am saying is that we should empower women to freely make these choices. Women should be confident that, in their ecosystem, family responsibilities are shared. They should be confident that their contributions to the wider society are cheered and supported, and not seen as derelictions of their duties as mothers, daughters and daughters-in-law. Some countries have tried to boost female participation in their legislatures through the imposition of legal quotas. I am personally very wary of going down this route, which has led to some perverse outcomes elsewhere. I learned of this a few years ago when I was part of a Commonwealth delegation observing a national election on the African continent.”
“Therefore, while the numbers matter, we should not have women fill places in Parliaments for its own sake, if they do not play a meaningful role. Let me take an analogy from the corporate world. The Singapore Government has been advocating that boards of companies should aim to have 30% of women directors. In order to reach 30%, some family-run companies may be tempted to appoint female family members, but that would not be meaningful if these women did not exercise independent decision-making. To that end, it is somewhat reassuring to see that in Singapore politics, there is an increased presence of women playing influential roles. There are more female Ministers in Cabinet than ever before, helming Ministries. But we want to see more. There are also more female opposition Members of Parliament than ever before. We want to see more of them, too. But what will it take to increase the pool of able and willing female Singaporeans entering the forefront of politics? Any political leader in Singapore will know that it is more difficult to find women to stand as candidates in Parliamentary elections. I count myself fortunate that I did not face any family or societal pressures when I decided to join the Workers’ Party 20 years ago. Not having a spouse or children, I did not need to agonise over how the family would cope without me at home at night, or how their lives and morale would be affected by nasty media headlines and the testy exchanges that take place in this House from time to time. As for my parents, they are persons of great fortitude. My mother is a retired nurse who has seen life-and-death emergencies. As for my late father, he simply laughed it off on learning that I had joined the Workers’ Party, saying, and I quote: "Congratulations.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Motion calls for a whole-of-society approach to remove barriers that impede women from free participation in society. I would like to focus my speech on female participation in political leadership. Question: how does Singapore fare right now in women political leadership? I believe we all accept that women must be a big part of this House. Women must not just be a big part of this House; women should hold leadership positions in Government and in political parties. Over the years, this House has seen progress. For decades before 1984, the House was all male. After the 1984 General Elections, three women were elected on the ruling party ticket – Dr Aline Wong, Dr Dixie Tan and Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. They made up about 3% of the total number of Members of Parliament. Today, the House is touching 30% women, a 10-fold increase. We have female Ministers, we had a female Speaker, we continue to have female Leaders of the House. How are we doing if we compare ourselves globally? The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) puts out a country ranking of the percentage of females in national legislatures. Singapore, with its nearly 30% female Members of Parliament, is ranked 54th in the world. When one looks at the countries above Singapore, they are an incredibly diverse mix of countries at different stages of development. Singapore lags significantly behind the Nordic countries as well as Rwanda and the UAE which have between 40% and 61% of women legislators. We are doing slightly better than the USA at 27% and about on par with Germany and Australia which are at 31%. When one looks at the list of countries with high proportions of women legislators, one will notice that certain countries which are not known for gender equality seem to be high on the list.”
“More recently, the murder that took place at River Valley High School makes me wonder if every frontline officer has been adequately trained in the people-to-people skills necessary to handle traumatised victims and, in particular, minors. Suffice to say, victims are stakeholders and their cooperation can make or break a case. To this end, we must not neglect the training of law enforcement officers in critical soft skills that will make them more effective. Madam, let me summarise. I have highlighted today that even as the Police has indeed been at the forefront of keeping Singapore safe, other agencies have as well. In addition and, more importantly, we must never think that safety is the only metric by which to judge the quality of law enforcement agencies. The need to do justice and to act fairly is equally critical. Having more inclusive case processes would also be in order. Madam, I wish SPF and all law enforcement agencies success. While I support the Motion, we should not think that we have arrived but strive for even higher standards. [Applause.]”
“In the main, the Government did not disagree with us, stating that we were "pushing an open door." To that end, it seems to me that some review of priorities should be considered. For instance, on the way statements are recorded from suspects, we know that video-recording is a good safeguard to ensure that statements are not coerced. It also protects officers from false accusations. We heard from the Minister then that video-recording was the gold standard but resources were a constraint. When I suggested recording statements in other languages for suspects not fluent in English, I was told that it was not possible. But these are being done in other countries. So, is it a case of priorities? As for our response towards crime victims, my assessment is that we lag behind other countries in our measures. To be fair, there have been some steps in this direction to recognise crime victims as stakeholders. For instance, the Police Service Pledge requires officers to give victims an interim update within seven days of reporting a case. Where offenders are charged in Court, victims may be heard in certain cases through the use of Victim Impact Statements, and there are higher chances of them receiving compensation from offenders at the time of sentencing. However, I believe these measures are not used in the vast majority of Court cases. Madam, we can do a thorough review of how to involve the victim at critical stages of the case such as during pre-trial hearings on bail and explaining to them the reasons for prosecutorial decisions, such as what charges are being preferred or when there is a decision not to prosecute. I had spoken about this last November and will not repeat further here.”
“Did every suspect plead guilty? Did nobody claim trial? And if trials were conducted, how did the judges assess the evidence? And so on. Madam, I use this hypothetical example to illustrate that safety is not the only metric that counts. If a society were to be absolutely safe, one could go overboard and lock up as many people as possible. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds, as it is an accepted dilemma faced by governments and law enforcement all over the world. Students of Criminal Justice learn very early about Herbert Packer's two models of criminal justice developed in the 1960s: the crime control model and the due process model. A crime control model focuses on efficiency and crime suppression, seeing crime control as more important than individual freedom. On the other hand, a due process model focuses on having a just and fair criminal justice system for all and upholding constitutional rights. Every criminal justice system worth its salt will have to find its balance between the two models. While it seems to me that many Singaporeans would prioritise crime control, fair-minded Singaporeans would also want a system where law enforcement agencies must produce evidence of a high standard before anyone is convicted and punished. To that end, I would urge the Government to look into finding the resources to enable law enforcement to perform their roles more effectively. For today, I will take just two aspects: recording of statements and supporting crime victims. During the debate on the Justice Motion last November, my party colleagues and I pointed to certain aspects of the justice system where more could be done to ensure its fairness, accessibility and independence.”
“At the outset, I acknowledge that it is quite natural to focus on the Police as the pre-eminent law enforcement agency. However, keeping Singapore safe is also done every day by many other agencies as well as private sector organisations, whom I feel are often not acknowledged enough. Take, for instance, the Central Narcotics Bureau. CNB is often engaged in very high stakes and dangerous operations, where the offences involve the death penalty and having to battle crime syndicates with significant resources. Another example is the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, whose officers are tasked with preventing the entry of undesirable foreigners. Yet another is the Prison Service, which is charged with the safe custody of offenders, their rehabilitation and their re-integration into society. These agencies should also occupy the public mind share as co-equal contributors to the state of Singapore security. Madam, Singapore's relatively safe living environment is an asset. It gives comfort to citizens and makes it attractive to foreigners to come here to live and work. Despite this strength, I wish to emphasise that effective policing should not be measured only by this metric of law and order. I now turn to the second point of my speech. Imagine, hypothetically, if one were to be confronted with the statistic, that every arrest by law enforcement officers resulted in a conviction in Court. On the one hand, a 100% success rate may seem truly impressive, but on further reflection, a reasonable person would want to drill further down into the reasons for this. Questions such as the following would be asked: how did the law enforcement officers get it right every single time? Were they so careful to only arrest suspects when the evidence was overwhelming?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Motion today calls for Parliament to commend the Singapore Police Force on its 200th anniversary for keeping Singapore safe. The three Members of the House who have filed the Motion and supported it, understand what Police work entails; being a former prosecutor and two former Police officers respectively. Madam, there is no doubt that crime and security threats have become more complex and unconventional. The Force and its officers have had to continually adapt and raise their game to be equal to these challenges. It is also not easy to manage the ever-increasing expectations of the public who, in this digital age, expect quick turnaround times and instant answers from investigators through WhatsApp. My Party colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, will speak more about the work of SPF in the community. That said, we should also be mindful that there are other police forces working in, arguably, even tougher conditions, perhaps, because the police are unarmed as in the UK or because the public has the right to carry firearms, as in the US. In my speech today, I shall resist the temptation to reminisce about my late father's involvement in the Operation in 1965, just described by Member of Parliament, Mr Murali, where Inspector Allan Lim was fatally shot, nor shall I dwell on my experiences as a law enforcement officer in the 1990s. Indeed, several Members of this House are former officers with longer and deeper insights. Instead, I will make two points. First, that we should not forget the co-equal contributions made by other agencies and, second, that effective policing is not just about safety and security alone. First, the co-equal contributions of other agencies.”
“This sub-section will make it an offence for pedestrians travelling in the direction of a roadblock to cross the barrier and subjects pedestrians to the officers’ instructions as well. Earlier, the Minister of State explained that one of the targets for this provision are car drivers who attempt to abandon their cars and escape on foot. Could he clarify whether there are other categories of pedestrians who are being envisioned by this new provision? Finally, Police powers to Commercial Affairs Officers (CAOs) and Special Constabulary. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill propose to expand the powers of CAOs and Special Police Officers (SPOs). These clauses will empower these officers not just to do investigations but to exercise all Police powers, including the power of arrest without warrant, and have similar powers of search, forced entry and so on. From my understanding, CAD has had Police officers attached to it since it was formed. This arrangement was made precisely because the CAO’s powers were limited; when it was time to do raids, the Police officers attached to CAD would accompany the investigators in charge to exercise their full powers. My understanding is that this arrangement has worked for many years. Sir, may I ask what has motivated the change to give CAOs and SPOs full Police powers now? Is this due to manpower shortage issues or some other operational reason? 6.53 pm”
“The assessments require potential Police leaders to be put through simulations of incident management at the frontline and officers are also continually developed for Police leadership. There is also an organisational culture amongst uniformed personnel which can be quite distinct from civilians working in the same organisation. That being the case, one has to wonder about the delegation of Police leadership powers at the highest level to civilians. While these civilians may be senior enough in grade, would they have the necessary experience and credibility to exercise such command responsibilities? Although there are other provisions in the main Act that allow for assignment of powers to civilians, they are usually clearly scoped. For instance, section 18 of the Act enables the Minister to appoint civilians to exercise powers to grant licences. To expect civilians to exercise such administrative powers seems unobjectionable, compared with the prospect of them exercising command or frontline powers. Sir, my view is that the scope of clause 5 is not clear as the wording is not qualified. A further explanation of what is envisaged would be necessary. Earlier in the Second Reading speech, the Minister of State did reiterate or confirm that certain powers of the CP would be non-delegable. Where are we to find this list for clarification? Next, conduct of roadblocks. Clause 6 of the Bill makes changes to the provision on conducting roadblocks. Under the amendments, it is much more explicit what drivers and Police officers can and cannot do. This is an improvement. Sir, I have a query about the proposed section 26(6), which is new.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill. These clarifications pertain to three areas. First, the delegation of powers to civilian officers; second, the conduct of roadblocks; and third, the new powers to be given to Commercial Affairs Officers and Special Police Officers. First, delegation of powers to civilian officers. Under the existing Act, the powers of the Commissioner (CP) may be delegated by him to a Police officer not below the rank of superintendent. In the case of the Deputy Commissioner (DCP), his powers may be delegated by CP to a Police officer not below the rank of an assistant superintendent. Clause 5 of the Bill will change the position to enable such powers of the CP or DCP to be delegated to non-Police personnel who are performing duties in the Police Force not below the prescribed grade. In the Ministry's media release on the Bill on 5 July, it was clarified that this provision would allow delegation of CP’s or DCP’s powers to civilian officers in leadership positions within the SPF. I am somewhat concerned about what this change will entail. For instance, is it envisaged that the command of the force at the highest levels could conceivably be delegated to civilian officers from time to time? If this is so, I wonder how well this will go down amongst uniformed officers. Sir, we assume that Police training is a critical prerequisite for exercising Police powers, let alone for commanding those who exercise such powers. Further, developing Police leadership skills is a specialised field that, in recent years, has been spearheaded by the Police Psychological Services Division.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a question for the Minister on school security in general. I am aware that many schools hire an Operations Manager, who is usually someone with military or law enforcement experience. And certainly, I think we can see that this is helpful if the school has to manage any security or other incidents. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether this is a baseline requirement for all schools, that they need to have an Operations Manager with such experience.”
“Finally, clause 17(2) of the Bill will facilitate the Public Guardian in giving special approval for LPAs to be executed remotely. This may be allowed with prior approval if the Public Guardian is satisfied that there is "good reason" why the donor cannot appear physically before a Certificate Issuer to execute the electronic document. Given what we have discussed about the risk of not appearing in person before the Certificate Issuer, it will be useful to know what scenarios are being contemplated as constituting good reasons. Indeed, the Ministry has stated in its public consultation summary that exceptional circumstances will need to be shown. Could the Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on these circumstances? For example, does it include situations where donors are overseas for long periods of time? Sir, I look forward to hearing the Ministry's responses to my queries.”
“Second, clause 12 will give new powers to the Public Guardian to interview the donor. The new section 31A provides that the Public Guardian may require the donor to appear before him if there is reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to execute the LPA or to appoint a particular donee. It is further stated that one of the grounds for such suspicion is the number of LPAs registered or pending registration with the same donee. Sir, this provision is well-intentioned but raises a few questions. Although it is stated that the Public Guardian can require the donor to be interviewed, it is not stated what the consequence will be if the donor does not attend. This could happen for innocent reasons like not being physically mobile. What will the Public Guardian do in that circumstance? Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Public Guardian might apply to Court for a decision on whether the LPA should be deregistered. Could he clarify, for example, whether the Public Guardian might even decline to register the LPA in the first instance? Next, on what basis would the Public Guardian find reasonable cause to suspect fraud or undue pressure? Will the Public Guardian largely rely on information given to it rather than initiate its own investigations? Third, the Bill specifically suggests that being a donee in multiple LPAs is a suspicious circumstance. How will this operate in practice? For example, if I am named a donee by three family members, will that be considered suspicious? Indeed, the likelihood of family members appointing the same donee is increasing as many of us need to assist elderly relatives who are unmarried or childless.”
“We have already seen hostile litigation among family members over LPAs, with lawyers and doctors dragged in to justify their assessments of whether the donor was mentally capable or incapable at various points in time. It is prudent not to include other suggested groups like religious and grassroots leaders without much more consideration. Sir, the Bill will mandate that LPAs be executed and registered digitally from now on and reports by deputies be filed online. As with all things digital, there are concerns about those who would find it difficult or even oppressive to do so and how we would need to include them in the implementation of the OPG online. The Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, Mr Louis Chua, will elaborate on this while my colleague in Aljunied GRC, Mr Leon Perera, will offer his suggestions for some reforms for the future. For my part, I wish to seek clarifications about three clauses in the Bill: the proposed section 10(C)(2), clause 12 and clause 17(2). First, the proposed section 10(C)(2). This will allow the Public Guardian to provide alternative ways to transact with its office if the transaction cannot be carried out through the online system and "due to a person's physical disability or other circumstance or because the system is unavailable or for any other reason." It would be useful for the Ministry to elaborate on the scope of these exceptions. When we say a person is unable to use the system due to physical disability, are we referring to a person who cannot use his fingers to key in a digital identification or who is visually impaired? What is the scope of the wide phrase "for any other reason"? Would this include, for instance, persons who are hospitalised or incarcerated?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer who is involved in the issuance of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs). I have also had personal experience as a court-appointed deputy of a mentally incapacitated person. Sir, the primary purpose of this Bill is to enable the Office of the Public Guardian to establish an electronic transaction system to facilitate the execution and registration of LPAs and other documents. I am generally in support of this Bill, which promises to make it more convenient for the public to execute LPAs and register them instead of needing to print and submit wet-ink documents to the OPG. Another group of persons who would benefit are court-appointed deputies who will also be able to transact online with the OPG and retrieve information more easily. There are also provisions to alert donors of suspicious circumstances surrounding the intended LPAs, which are well-intentioned. Even if the move is to go online, the Ministry has decided to retain the requirement for an LPA donor to appear in person before the Certificate Issuer. While some have called for this requirement to be done away and to allow donors to appear remotely, I disagree. The in-person appearance is important as it will enable the Certificate Issuer – whether a lawyer, a psychiatrist or a credited medical practitioner – to make some assessment as to whether the donor is making the document out of free will. In comparison, having the donor appear online may be convenient. But online certification also carries a higher risk that there are unseen persons or forces adding pressure to the donor to execute the document. Similarly, out of caution, the Government has decided not to expand the category of professions who can issue LPAs. Again, I agree that caution is warranted.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification for Minister of State Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. Earlier he mentioned that nationwide, we have about 300 cameras to detect speeding offences. I do note that it is more than before. But from time to time, we also get requests from residents for us to convey to TP that they would like speed cameras installed at certain locations. The reply from TP, typically, is that they would consider the matter and any decision whether or not to install would depend on the accident rate as well as public feedback. So, I would like him to confirm that TP does not need accidents to happen before they decide whether to install a camera at a certain location. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the question. I am not sure whether the Member was in the House when I answered a similar question on this. TP does not wait for traffic accidents to happen. Essentially, we work with various stakeholders and when we have feedback that there is a certain hotspot, or even, not a hotspot, but feedback relating to speeding in certain areas, we will go down and take a look. When we go down, it does not mean that we will install a camera in the area. But we will do our intelligence work and enforcement operations around the area, making sure that even before we install a camera, we know that there is a real problem there. If there are other solutions, we will continue with other alternatives. I want to assure the Member that we do not wait for traffic accidents to happen. This is something that we all know very well. I have said this in this House. This is the operational procedure of what we do at TP.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have got three clarifications for MOT. The first question is I wonder if the Senior Minister of State could explain to us regarding frisk searches whether commuters can expect these searches to be targeted, that is, based on suspicion, or would they also be conducted on a random basis, as a general deterrent to would-be offenders? So, that is the first question – whether it is targeted or does it also include random searches for no suspicion at all. The second question is, she mentioned that the persons who would be empowered to do frisk searches and other searches would receive the relevant training in consultation with MHA and she highlighted that they would have to undergo WSQ courses. Would she be able to tell us which modules they would be required to undergo? And, lastly, I heard what she said about the safeguards for searching of passengers, including searching of women to be done by only women personnel, as well as the searches to be done in a video recorded area. So, while these safeguards are recorded in the Hansard, would that also be enshrined in some subsidiary legislation or made public in an easy-to-understand form so that commuters as well as the officers empowered to search would know where the boundaries lie?”
“It is also critical to ensure that the risk of misuse of search powers on commuters is minimised.”
“Do they have the requisite training, not only on how to perform the physical act of search, but also how to handle any confrontations that may arise? Another concern would be about searches on female commuters. Where are the precautions on how searches on women should be conducted, in order to have strict regard to decency? Finally, the Bill provides that it is an offence for commuters not to comply with any request or order of a Police officer or approved person, on pain of punishment of a fine of up to $1,000. Since commuters have to comply, it is only reasonable that officers be easily identifiable. Clauses 24 and 31 provide that a Police officer in plainclothes or an approved person must declare his office to the person before he or she is required to comply. The only category of officers who are required to produce identification cards to the public are outsourced enforcement officers. May I ask why is it not provided that all Police officers and approved persons must show their warrant cards or identification cards if asked by the public? This Bill seems to be a lowering of the standards set by the Road Traffic Act itself, as section 128 of the Act currently requires Police officers not in uniform to produce their identification card to the public when asked. In my opinion, requiring plainclothes officers to merely declare their office is not sufficient, and cases of impersonation of Police officers happen all the time. I am concerned about what these mean for safeguards for the commuter. Sir, in conclusion, as I stated at the start of my speech, I am supportive of the goal of enhancing safety on our roads and strengthening security on our public transport. Nevertheless, it is important that the provisions are coupled with strong capacities to detect offences.”
“On the other hand, the SPF officers are expected to handle trickier situations involving the exercise of judgement and discretion and working with the community. Of course, over the years, there has been some convergence and overlap, as the training of APOs and unarmed security has been enhanced to enable them to perform more tasks than before. But the need to draw a line is still solid and sound. The Bill proposes that frisk searches may be conducted by Police officers and those defined as “senior approved persons”. “Senior approved persons” are, in turn, defined to include members of the Auxiliary Police, security officers engaged by the public transport operator, and outsourced enforcement officers. It is not clear to me that there is any requirement of seniority in the categories mentioned, so the term “senior approved persons” may, in fact, be a misnomer. More importantly, is enabling non-SPF actors to conduct frisk searches by force appropriate? For comparison, let us look at another piece of legislation. In the Public Order Act, Part III on Special Events Security reserves the power to search persons entering a special event area to SPF officers only; others, such as Auxiliary Police and private security are empowered to do less-intrusive forms of security checks, such as checking bags and manning scanners. This sensible demarcation is a recognition that a bodily search is an intimate security check which should only be performed by highly-trained persons. This Bill today marks a departure from that approach. Concerns, naturally, arise. Are Auxiliary Police, security officers and the outsourced enforcement officers suitable to perform frisk searches?”