Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 64.
“For those who do blood grouping, and I am sure many of them would have done so, this is not going to hurt them a lot. But if the suspect refuses to give that consent, he can be brought to court and the court may order him to provide the blood sample. And if he still refuses, of course, appropriate warning will be given and inferences will be drawn by the court for his refusal to provide that blood sample. But if the blood sample is not taken, there are two other methods, for example, the head hair follicle or the buckle swab, or if not, it could be saliva. It could also be skin cells. So let me settle this question first. Next is whether the procedures are tight enough. The procedures will certainly be very tight. For example, for the taking of a blood sample, it will be properly recorded. It is sealed in a box and it will be stored properly and brought to HSA. Only HSA officers have the key to open that box and they will compare the list of blood samples with the names provided by the Police as recorded by the Police. As I have said earlier, the people who need to take the samples will be trained. It is not a very difficult thing to do. As to the purging of records, I have said before that we are reviewing the Registration of Criminals Act to see how we can consider some records as spent. Then the court may no longer take cognisance of them and Police may not use them. But this is still under review and therefore I will not be able to give an answer today. But at an appropriate time, when the review is completed, I will share more of that review. As to returning the record of persons who are subsequently acquitted, as raised by Mr Chandra Mohan, this need not be done. The records are stored by electronic means. So, the only way is to delete them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the issues raised by Prof. Chin Tet Yung and Mr Chandra Mohan can be classified into the following areas: One is whether it is more appropriate to have this procedure to take body samples or even other particulars like finger impression and photograph in the CPC. The second is whether when consent is not given by the person, then should an appropriate warning be administered. The third is whether we have competent persons to handle this and whether the procedures are tight to make sure that there will be no abuses and that proper procedures are followed. The fourth is regarding the purging of records of people who are registered on the Register of Criminals. Let me deal with these issues. On the procedure part of it, what we are doing now is not different from what is provided for in the Act. For example, in the case of finger impression and photograph, these are clearly laid out in the Registration of Criminals Act. What we have added in the Bill is the taking of body samples. By body samples, it could be head hair follicle or a buckle swab in the mouth. For these two body samples, they do not require the consent of the person. The Police could just do it, just like what they do now for finger impression and photograph. It is only when the Police want to take a body sample, like a blood sample, then consent must be sought because we consider taking of blood samples to be a bit more intrusive. But, in practice, it is not like the case where you need to see a doctor, and he puts a syringe into your vein and takes out whatever millilitres of blood. It is just like what you do for blood grouping, where the nurse uses a little needle to prick your finger and take a little sample of blood. That is all that is to do it. It is not that bad.”
“The Minister had explained that the removal of particulars from the Register today in the Bill only relates to those 100 years and above, and do not really take into account this category of persons who have just been convicted of minor offences. I hope the opportunity will be taken to amend the Act relating to this group in future. Sir, with those concerns, I support the Bill.”
“However, there is the additional sanction provided in the Act which is that if the suspect did not consent, adverse inferences could be drawn against him in terms of his liability or his guilt relating to the taking of such samples. In the past, drawing of adverse inferences, especially those laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code, requires a warning to be given to the suspect that if he did not give an explanation or a good reason, the court may draw adverse inferences against him. But in this particular proposed amendment, there is no such warning enacted, as can be found, eg, in the CPC (section 122). Therefore, a suspect may not really know what is going on. There would be no means of putting him in a position to be informed that adverse inferences could be drawn against him. So I hope that in the enacting, not so much of this Bill, but in the enacting of the rules concerning this Bill, the Minister would take the chance to put in provisions relating to warning, as far as this consent element is concerned. Next, I wish to raise a matter which I hope would have been dealt with in the Bill but which has not so far materialised. In the Budget debate earlier this year, a number of hon. Members, including myself, had brought up the issue whether people who are convicted of minor crimes should not, after a period of time, have their particulars removed from the Register of Criminals. The reason is that there have always been problems for them finding jobs, and they were hardly given a chance by employers and who are always, it seems to me, adversely affected by the stigma of having been convicted of a crime, no matter how minor.”
“It has provisions that affect those who may be only suspected of a crime, but not yet charged, tried or convicted. It involves criminal procedures to obtain blood samples and other body samples from suspects, as distinct from convicted persons. Given the application of the provisions to suspects, the title of the Act is somewhat misleading. My reaction to this is one of unease, because in provisions relating to criminal procedure, it has always been the practice to enact those provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, where there is a comprehensive code covering all aspects of criminal procedure and investigation. It is therefore somewhat inappropriate to find matters of criminal procedure dealing in an Act which has a very innocuous title called Registration of Criminals. In any case, if someone asked what does that suggest to a layman, it suggests registration of convicted criminals, not of suspects. So, I hope that the opportunity will be taken to re-enact such provisions and to take them out of the Registration of Criminals Act in due course. Second, naturally I would want to express my support in the setting up of this new DNA database as a means to combat crime. I think it is a good idea. But there are a couple of concerns that I hope the Minister can address. First of all, the Minister has already explained that in the case of blood and body samples, which involve an invasive procedure in obtaining such samples, the consent of the suspect must be obtained. But, of course, he then went on to say that if the consent is not forthcoming, the suspect can then be taken to a magistrate and, there, the court can order the sample to be taken. With that I have no objections.”
“This has not been changed since 1949 when the Act was first enacted. Clause 4 therefore increases the fine to a maximum of $1,000 to take into account rises in income level and to maintain the deterrent effect. No change is proposed for the imprisonment term. Removal of registrable particulars of persons aged 100 years or more Currently, the Registrar would remove the registrable particulars of persons whose death is registered under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. However, as foreign offenders who die do not register under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the Register still contains records of foreign persons who may have passed away. For example, the Register now holds 18 names of foreign persons who are over 100 years old but the police is not able to determine if these foreigners are still alive. Clause 6 therefore empowers the Registrar to remove the registrable particulars from the register of criminals and DNA information from the DNA database of any person aged 100 years or older or whose death has been registered under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. Sir, technology advancements have opened new ways for us to fight crime. The police must harness these technological advances to enhance its capabilities to stay ahead of criminals. The DNA database and the upgrading of the AFIS will go a long way in improving the police's ability to fight and solve crimes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposed Bill, as the Minister stated, seeks to amend the Registration of Criminals Act. That seems to be an innocuous enough Bill. But the proposed amendments in the Bill actually go beyond mere registration.”
“However, the Act also empowers prisons officers to record a more detailed description of the prisoner convicted of a crime, such as his sex, age or apparent age, bodily appearance, height, distinctive marks on his body and any other available information that helps to identify the prisoner. Such information is very helpful in identifying a person, especially when a victim is trying to identify the culprit. For this reason, a new definition of "other particulars" is proposed to enable the authorised officers to record information other than the registrable particulars. Also, a new definition of "photograph" is proposed to enable the authorised officers to take photographs, including distinguishable body marks, such as tattoos and scars, which would be very useful for identifying criminals. Upgrading of Automated Fingerprint Identification System Police is upgrading the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or AFIS in short, to allow for electronic capturing of finger impressions. When upgraded, the new AFIS will enable Police to search and match finger impressions more quickly. Currently, sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act make reference to the sheet of paper upon which the finger impression is made. When the new AFIS is implemented, finger impressions will be captured electronically, instead of onto a sheet of paper. Clause 3 repeals and re-enacts sections 8, 9 and 10 to do away with the reference to the sheet of paper upon which the finger impression is made. Increase in penalty for refusal to submit to taking of photograph and finger impression Sir, the current penalty for refusing, without reasonable excuse, to submit to the taking of photograph and finger impression is a fine not exceeding $250 or a maximum imprisonment term of one month.”
“As the DNA information is stored in electronic form in the DNA database, removal of the information from the database is equivalent to the destruction of a physical record like a photograph. Sir, let me now move on to the other amendments to fine-tune and to update the Act. Other Amendments relating to the Keeping of Records New Definitions Clause 2 of the Bill introduces several new definitions, namely "authorised officer", "other particulars" and "photograph". Currently, only police and customs officers may exercise the powers under the Act. This arrangement is not satisfactory because immigration officers have to seek Police's assistance to take registrable particulars of immigration offenders arrested. Also, as the Health Sciences Authority will be commissioned to operate the DNA database, officers from the Health Sciences Authority must also be allowed to take body samples. The new definition of "authorised officer" has thus been amended to cover the police, immigration, customs and other law enforcement officers, and a person so appointed by the Commissioner of Police. While the power to take registrable particulars and body samples would be extended to all immigration officers and officers from the Health Sciences Authority, in practice, only those officers tasked with the responsibility to take registrable particulars and who have received the proper training will be allowed to do so. Sir, currently, "registrable particulars" means the particulars of any conviction, sentence, banishment, expulsion or deportation, and any name, description, photograph, or finger impression of any person so convicted, sentenced, banished, expelled or deported, as the case may be.”
“Currently, the Act makes it a duty for every person legally bound to submit to having his photograph and finger impression taken to do so. Any such person who refuses to have his photograph and finger impression taken shall be guilty of an offence. The Act also empowers the Police to use necessary force to obtain the photograph and finger impression. Clause 5 extends these provisions to make them applicable to the taking of body samples as well. Consent for the taking of Blood Samples Must consent be sought before the taking of blood samples? Yes, consent must first be obtained before a blood sample may be taken from a person who is arrested and accused of a crime. However, there is no need for consent to be obtained before head hair with follicle or a swab from a person's mouth is taken for the purpose of DNA profiling. The difference in treatment is because the taking of blood from a person is more intrusive than taking of a head hair or a swab from the person's mouth. If a person refuses to give consent for his blood to be taken and offers no good reason for the refusal, the court may order the person to give the blood sample. The court may also draw inferences from the refusal and treat the refusal as corroboration, or amounting to corroboration, of any evidence against him. Persons Acquitted or Discharged What happens to the body samples of persons acquitted or discharged? Currently, the Act requires the Registrar of Criminals to destroy the photograph and finger impression of a person acquitted or discharged within three months from the date of acquittal or discharge. Similarly, clause 5 requires the Registrar to remove the DNA information of a person from the DNA database within three months of his acquittal or discharge.”
“This ensures that Police is able to compare the accused person's DNA information with the DNA evidence found at the scene of a crime. A body sample may also be taken from a person who is convicted of a crime or is currently serving an imprisonment term. However, those who have completed their sentences when the Act comes into operation will not be included as the Act will not apply retrospectively to this group of criminals. Who can give a Body Sample Voluntarily? Clause 5 also provides for persons who were at the scene of a crime, or are being questioned in connection with the investigation of a crime, to give body samples voluntarily. In practice, this provision would apply mostly to Police investigators who work at the scene of a crime and is intended to eliminate their DNA from the DNA found at the scene. The DNA from Police investigators would also be stored in the DNA database even after the case is closed. This is because Police investigators would invariably investigate new cases and it is not cost efficient or effective to re-take body samples from Police investigators for DNA profiling. Who can take Body Samples? Clause 5 also provides that only trained persons, such as a registered medical practitioner or an authorised officer, who have received training in taking body samples, can do so. In practice, all Police officers would be trained on the proper and safe taking of body samples. For example, Police officers would ask a person whether he is suffering from any blood disorder or blood-related disease. If the person informs the Police officer that he is a haemophiliac or suffering from other blood-related disease, the Police officer would take either a sample of the head hair with follicle or a swab from the person's mouth, rather than a blood sample.”
“When a suspect is found, it will also enable the Police to match the DNA profile with that of the suspect to help narrow down the list of crime suspects. This is especially useful in investigating crimes with very few leads for the Police to work on. The use of DNA profiling to enhance forensic capability in solving crime is not new. Foreign law enforcement agencies, such as those in the US, UK and Australia, have been using DNA profiling for many years and DNA databases have been set up in these countries to aid police investigations. Clause 5 of the Bill gives effect to the establishment of the DNA database and the taking of body samples for the purpose of DNA profiling. Clause 5 also specifies the purposes for which the collected DNA information may be used, namely, for forensic comparison with other DNA information and for any proceedings for any offence. Definition of Body Sample What is a body sample? Sir, a body sample is defined as a sample of blood, head hair with follicle and a swab taken from a person's mouth. Clause 5 empowers the Minister to prescribe the taking of any other body samples, such as saliva and skin cells. This is to cater for instances where it is not possible to obtain any one of the three types of body samples from a person because the person is a haemophiliac and suffering from severe mouth ulcers or is bald. However, there would be very few cases where we would not be able to take any one of the three types of body samples from a person. Persons whom Body Samples may be taken from Who can Police take body samples from? Clause 5 also empowers the Police to take a body sample from a person who is arrested and accused of a crime specified in the Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Introduction Sir, this Bill amends the Registration of Criminals Act to establish a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (or DNA) database of criminals. The Bill also makes several amendments to update the Act. The Registration of Criminals Act provides for the registration of criminals. The Act enables the Police to record into the Register of Criminals, registrable particulars such as the photograph, finger impressions, and conviction records of persons convicted of serious crimes like robbery, assault and housebreaking. The Register of Criminals is a very useful tool which aids Police investigations. The registrable particulars are especially useful in helping the Police to identify suspects. For example, finger impressions lifted from crime scenes are matched against finger impressions recorded in the Register, thus helping the Police to narrow down the list of suspects. The court also makes use of these criminal records when sentencing a repeat offender. Setting up of DNA Database Why do we want to set up a DNA database? Sir, the setting up of a DNA database of criminals will greatly enhance the Police's investigative capabilities. The probability of two persons having identical DNA profiles is extremely low, and could be as remote as one in a billion, depending on the race of the person. Body samples, such as blood, semen and tissue samples, found at the crime scenes can be used to profile the DNA of the person to whom the body sample belongs. Through a DNA database of criminals, Police will be able to determine if a body sample found at the crime scene belongs to an ex-criminal.”
“Between 1st January 2001 and 13th October 2002, 1,341 persons aged 16 and below were reported missing. Of these, 1327 or 98.9% were found. Most of these missing persons (81.3%) were aged between 13 and 16 years. Police is still investigating the remaining 14 cases. FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKER LEVY 2. Dr Jennifer Lee asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what was the Government levy for foreign domestic workers at the time of its introduction and how has it increased over the years to its present rate; and (b) what was the number of foreign domestic workers at the time of introduction of the levy and what were the numbers since then, specifically in the years before and after each change in the levy.”
“Singaporeans can also call the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Consular hotline (65 - 332 0000) for emergency consular assistance if required. Our overseas missions and other Government agencies have also taken appropriate measures to enhance the security of their premises, residences, staff and their families. Our overseas missions are in constant contact with our citizens working, studying or living in the host countries through students bodies, Singapore clubs, warden system and other channels to provide any consular assistance if required. Singapore companies in Batam and Bintan, especially those in the Batamindo Industrial Park and the Bintan Industrial Estate, have been briefed on the situation and the various security measures introduced by the industrial park operators. Many of our Singapore-based companies are found in these two industrial parks. For those outside the park, plans are underway to brief them as well. There are also arrangements in place to assist the companies and our citizens who are working there during emergency. ASSISTANCE GIVEN TO INDONESIA AFTER BALI INCIDENT 13. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Prime Minister whether any assistance was offered, eg, medical aid, refrigeration facilities or airlifts, to the people in Indonesia during the recent Bali disaster and, if no such gestures were made, what were the reasons.”
“We should not sink into despondency, nor panic and cower in fear. We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by terrorism. We should respond to these threats in a calm and rational manner. We should maintain normalcy and go about our business as usual; just be more vigilant and alert. What we do not want is for people to play pranks by making false calls and hoaxes to divert the attention and waste the precious resources of the security agencies. We will deal firmly with such pranksters. Roles of businesses and private security agencies Following the Bali bomb blast, Police, together with ISD had again briefed the business community and the private security industry on the necessary security measures to adopt. We have also taken steps to raise the professionalism and competencies of the security guard industry. These include the revision of the basic training requirements for licensed security guards. We want to ensure that security guards are not only knowledgeable in security processes, but that they are also able to perform their assigned duties competently. All security guards will be trained to handle bomb threats, deal with suspicious-looking objects and persons, and respond to shootings and other emergencies. Advisory for overseas travel There were concerns about whether advisories will be issued to Singaporeans traveling overseas, security measures for business assets and Singaporeans working overseas. MFA will not be issuing a travel advisory at this stage. However, given the current circumstances, we would urge anyone who needs to travel in the region to keep themselves updated on developments in the region and to register with the nearest Singapore Embassy there.”
“Since September 11 last year, we have already taken various security measures to deal with the threat of terrorism facing Singapore. These security measures are still sufficiently robust. As I have previously informed this House, Police, and in some instances SAF and Gurkha officers, are deployed at key establishments such as Changi Airport, Tuas and Woodlands Checkpoints, certain Government buildings as well as our oil and water installations. Regular patrols are conducted and physical measures such as CCTVs and security lightings have been put in place to improve security. The Home Team and Mindef have conducted numerous joint exercises and analysed various scenarios to ensure that our contingency response capabilities and resources are ready to deal with any situation. Security measures at our borders have also been intensified to prevent entry of undesirable persons. Stringent immigration and security checks are carried out at all sea, air and land checkpoints. Police have recently deployed Explosive Detection Dogs (EDD) at the various checkpoints to aid in the detection of explosives. Role of the community Since the Bali incident, Police have enhanced their presence and increased their patrols to commercial and entertainment establishments. However, the police cannot be at every street corner. The community must also play its part by being vigilant and be on the lookout for suspicious events and characters. In fact, the critical information that gave ISD the lead in the investigation and eventual arrests of the Jemaah Islamiyah network in Singapore came from a member of the public. While there are no known imminent threats posed by the Jemaah Islamiyah, the general threat of terrorism has not abated. However, we should not allow this to affect our lives.”
“The only other discernible difference between citizenship by descent and citizenship by registration lies in Article 129(3)(b) of the Constitution, which states that the Government may deprive the citizenship of a citizen by registration if, within 5 years of the grant of citizenship by registration, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than 1 year or to a fine of more than $5,000 or if he has been engaged in activities which are prejudicial to the security of Singapore, or the maintenance of public order or essential services, or in any criminal activities prejudicial to the interests of public safety, peace or good order. For most people, these conditions are practically not applicable. Thus, while the form of the citizenship differs between a child born overseas to a Singaporean father and mother, the substance is practically the same. We are not the only country to make such a distinction. We are guided by the reasoning that, in communities like ours, the man is traditionally the main or in many cases, the sole breadwinner of the family. The man's place of employment would therefore usually decide where the family would reside. It would therefore be more practical for the citizenship of the child born overseas to follow that of the father's. Since the substance of the citizenship granted to children born overseas in either case is practically the same, my Ministry is of the view that, for now, we should not amend Article 122(1) of the Constitution.”
“Our Constitution does not make any distinction between a child born in Singapore to either a Singaporean father or Singaporean mother. Such children are Singapore citizens by birth. This would apply to most cases, as the majority of children born to a Singaporean parent or parents, are born in Singapore. Our Constitution also provides for children born overseas to at least one Singaporean parent to be granted citizenship. Children born overseas to a Singaporean mother (and foreigner father) are not deprived of a chance to be citizens. Article 122(1) of the Constitution allows for citizenship by descent to be granted to a child born overseas to a Singaporean father, provided that the child is registered within one year of birth. If the registration is not done within one year of birth, the Constitution allows for citizenship by registration to be granted to such children. Article 124 of the Constitution allows for children born overseas of a Singaporean mother (and foreigner father) to be citizens by registration. Although the Constitution has made this differentiation for births overseas, the practical effect is not great. The great majority of applications for citizenship of children born overseas to a Singaporean parent are approved.”
“The Internal Security Department's investigations have discovered that in one camping trip, Jemaah Islamiyah fiah ayub, which means cell leader, Khalim bin Jaffar, used the bus ride conveying the camp participants to an activity site as a cover to video the Sembawang Road and Pakistan Road areas where they believe American servicemen and their families stay. These are the Americans who the JI observe as frequent users of the shuttle bus service to Yishun MRT which was a target for a plan of attack which Khalim conveyed to the Al-Qaeda in 1997. Sir, there is no cause for parents to be unduly alarmed just because their children had attended the Jemaah Islamiyah religious classes or camps some years ago. They and their children will also not be implicated as Jemaah Islamiyah members or supporters simply because of this. If they still have any concern, they can contact the Internal Security Department. WOMEN'S CHARTER (Review) 11. Mr Charles Chong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports whether his Ministry will review Part VIII of the Women's Charter on maintenance orders to ensure that the provisions are more gender equal. 12. Mr Charles Chong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports whether his Ministry will review sections 69(1) and 113 of the Women's Charter to include a means test for women seeking maintenance from their husbands or former husbands. The Minister of State for Community Development and Sports (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (for the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Question Nos. 11 and 12 are related to the Women's Charter, with your permission, I would take both Questions together.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Jemaah Islamiyah established a unit called "Tarbiyah Rasmiyah", which means Official Education Unit, around 1992. The unit was tasked to organise religious classes and, subsequently, also children's camps. These activities were, however, stopped after 1998 when the Jemaah Islamiyah began to narrow its focus towards preparing the adult members for operational functions. This is when the training for the Jemaah Islamiyah members in Malaysia also began to include an increasingly more military-type curriculum. The Jemaah Islamiyah's religious classes and camps were not conducted under the banner of Jemaah Islamiyah. They were open to all and not confined only to children of Jemaah Islamiyah parents. The camps, which were called "Tamrin Kanak Kanak", which means Training for Children, began in 1995/96, and participation was sought through advertisements in the Berita Harian and by word of mouth. There was also at least one camp organised for teenagers between the ages of 13 and 15. The Internal Security Department investigations have not shown that the religious classes and the camps were used to indoctrinate the children with the Jemaah Islamiyah ideology. The religious classes for children centred on Quran reading, and the activities of the camp included the usual youth adventure learning activities, such as abseiling, "flying fox", swimming, archery and physical exercises. The Internal Security Department is aware of some of those who attended these religious classes and camps, but not all. Although the classes and camps were not used to purvey the Jemaah Islamiyah ideology, they were used as opportunities to talent-spot potential JI members from among the participants and their parents.”
“We are always vulnerable to threats of this nature and the most manifested symbol of terrorist act was seen in New York on 11th September 2001. Terrorist threats have always been a risk to us and we have always been vigilant. We have stepped up security measures on our borders and checkpoints and at our own key installations and various places, we have also enhanced our security measures to deal with the problem. At the same time, foreign intelligence agencies share information which they have with us and we also share with them. We have to deal with this problem together. ELDERSHIELD SCHEME 5. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have opted out of the ElderShield Scheme; (b) what measures have been taken to dissuade them from opting out; and (c) whether he will consider giving those without Central Provident Fund accounts another chance to open one so as to benefit from the Scheme.”
“All the security agencies in our region are very cooperative. We have been working very closely with them, even before the Jemaah Islamiyah case. As a result of information that we shared with the Malaysians, for example, they have also mounted their own operation and found their own group of Jemaah Islamiyah. As a result of information that we shared with the Philippines, they have arrested the Indonesian bomb maker and one of the key men of Jemaah Islamiyah. He had been arrested by the Filipino authorities early this year.”
“We have discussed this with the Indonesians and they understood what we have on them. But Indonesian law apparently does not currently allow them to take action.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, ISD's investigations show that some Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) members fled Singapore following the ISD arrests in December last year. They are dispersed and are believed to be in hiding in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and possibly the Philippines. Efforts are being made to bring them back to assist in investigations. The foreign suicide bombers whom `Sammy' planned to bring to Singapore are not identified. My Ministry is currently finalising a White Paper on the JI arrests and the threat of terrorism. More details will be disclosed then.”
“The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.22 pm”
“By requiring them to retake the driving test, it will then ensure that they have improved on their skills and they have changed their driving habits before they are allowed to get on to the roads again. In the case of a person who makes his living by driving, the Traffic Police is always prepared to help to speed up his retest if he has a case to ask for an early test. But that depends on a case-by-case basis. Prof. Chin asked whether under the demerit point system, we warn drivers about their poor driving record if they have a poor driving record. Indeed, this is already done by the Traffic Police. Under the Road Traffic Act, the Traffic Police is required to warn drivers by giving them notice in writing when a person accumulates 50% of the maximum number of demerit points at which suspension will be imposed. More importantly, I would say for such people who have to make a living through driving, they should be more careful on the roads and not to do anything that may cause danger or great harm to other motorists or road users, so that their licence would not be suspended. On the matter of educating the motorists, I think every year the Traffic Police conducts road safety campaigns. People do not pay heed. They think that they are safe drivers, until they get into trouble. For those who speed anyway, they will continue to speed until they get caught. While we try to educate them as much as possible, basically it is the attitude of the drivers to be courteous on the road, to give way to other people and to consider the interest of other road users as well. I hope that our motorists on our roads can be as courteous as some of the others in other countries. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, regarding the power given to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to suspend the driving licence of a person who is charged for hit-and-run where death or serious injury is caused, such power is not new. In the case of a person charged for causing death or serious injury to another person while under the influence of drink driving, reckless driving or dangerous driving, the Deputy Commissioner of Police already has such powers. But I can assure the House that the Deputy Commissioner will exercise his power to suspend the driving licence judiciously. It will only be invoked if the errant driver has been charged for an offence of hit-and-run. He will not be suspended if he has not been charged. The moment he is charged, then, of course, the Deputy Commissioner has the power to suspend the licence. While the suspension or disqualification of a person's driving licence may cause some hardship to the family, especially if the person makes his living by driving, such suspension or disqualification of driving licence is necessary in the interest of safety of all other road users. Suspension or disqualification takes a dangerous driver off the roads and, therefore, it will ensure that other road users are protected from such people. Of course, the person who is to be suspended can always make an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner will consider the appeal. But when considering the appeal, he will be very cautious in not putting a dangerous driver back on the roads again. People who have been suspended or disqualified from driving for a year or more are required to retake the driving test, as is currently the case. This is because these are persons who have already committed serious traffic offences.”
“Finally, I should like to ask the Minister to look into the rule that says that after a driver is suspended for a reasonably long period such as a year and above, he or she must retake the road test. While I agree that the driver must show proficiency in driving after such a long layoff, I would also like to suggest that they be allowed to take the test, and perhaps an amended test, as soon as the period of suspension ends, instead of waiting in the queue with the others. This has frequently meant that they are actually suspended for a longer period currently while waiting for the test. In many instances, their income has already been seriously affected and this prolongs the suspension even more. The suspended driver should be allowed to return to driving within a reasonable period and that means providing a test as soon as practicable. Madam, the Traffic Police and LTA have been doing a good job in educating the driving community to drive or ride with care and not to speed. It would seem that in many instances, the public education campaigns may not have had the desired effects and I would hope that the Minister would still look into new ways of educating drivers, especially those booked for speeding offences. Suspension should be used only on the most serious offences with the demerit system, and with certain offences having their points increased, it is easy especially for those who drive for a living to fall within the suspension range. I believe we should review the system to see whether before suspension, a driver can have sufficient warning about his poor driving record and, if needed, educate as to how he may be a better driver before he commits another offence. Madam, I support the Bill.”
“To address this, the amendment to introduce mandatory disqualification of the driving licence in the case of hit-and-run drivers where death or serious injury is caused, will create parity in the penalties for both drink-driving and hit-and-run. Mdm Deputy Speaker, these measures will make our roads safer. I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I particularly welcome the move to provide driving licences for life at a reasonable cost announced by the Minister of $50. I do hope that the Minister would consider free licences, as is the case with ICs or, at least, on a cost recovery basis for such licences. But, I suppose, $50 would be regarded by most as reasonable for a life-time licence. I turn to the powers of suspension of licences which have been increased as far as the Deputy Commissioner of Police is concerned. This is a very necessary power but must be used judiciously. This is especially so when the driver is the sole breadwinner of the family and when driving is a necessary part of his work. Very often, hon. Members would have to write to Traffic Police to review the suspension of drivers whose family incomes are seriously affected when the drivers are suspended. While I am, of course, not questioning the need for such a power or the exercise of it in appropriate circumstances, I would hope that there will be at least an appeal procedure set up for the driver to take when he wishes to contest suspension. Decisions made must be consistent as this is a quasi-judicial function and made only after due consideration is given to the seriousness of the offence, the driving record of the driver concerned and the effect such an suspension has on the driver and his family.”
“In past cases investigated by the Traffic Police, the Traffic Police have found drivers who would attempt to replace or remove damaged parts of their cars to evade arrest. For example, in one case, a hit-and-run driver had tried to evade arrest by replacing his car's front bumper, bonnet and side mirror, which had been damaged because of the accident. With the powers of arrest, search and seizure without a warrant in hit-and-run cases, the Police would be able to swiftly search a suspect's car and seize any evidence before the driver tries to dispose of it. Such powers are therefore necessary to prevent offenders from tampering with any evidence of the offence. Currently, a person convicted of hit-and-run where death or serious injury is caused can expect to be fined up to $3,000 and/or imprisoned for a term of up to 12 months. However, there is currently a disparity between the penalties for drink-driving and hit-and-run. The existing penalties for drink-driving are a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of up to 6 months, and mandatory disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of 12 months. This disparity between the penalties may result in a drink-driver who causes an accident to flee the scene. If the culprit driver surrenders himself to the Police or is traced through Police investigations after the alcohol in his body has subsided several hours later, the Police will not be able to prove that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol, as his blood specimen will not indicate the presence of alcohol. In this way, a drink-driver who flees the accident scene will not face mandatory disqualification of his driving licence even if he had caused death or serious injury in the hit-and-run accident.”
“However, I wish to emphasise that section 62A(1) still remains in force, and we have not changed our stand on disallowing drivers above 70 years of age from driving heavy vehicles. Enhanced measures against hit-and-run drivers The Road Traffic Act is also amended to enhance the measures we can take against hit-and-run drivers. The number of hit-and-run cases involving injuries or fatalities remains high. There were 179 hit-and-run cases in the year 2000, and 154 cases in 2001. These figures were higher than any of the preceding years since 1993. The act of hitting a person and driving off without stopping is wholly unacceptable. This is especially so when such a failure to render assistance can mean the difference between life and death to the victim. My Ministry proposes to enhance the measures against hit-and-run drivers in the following ways: . Firstly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police will be empowered to suspend the licence of a driver charged for failing to stop in an accident, which has caused death or serious injury, while he awaits court trial. Under the Road Traffic Act, a serious injury means any injury which causes a person to be in severe bodily pain, or to be unable to follow his ordinary lifestyle, for a period of seven days, as certified by a medical doctor. Secondly, we will enhance the penalty for hit-and-run drivers by making it mandatory for the court to disqualify a person convicted of a hit-and-run case, from holding or obtaining a driving licence for at least 12 months from the date of conviction. Thirdly, Police officers will be given powers of arrest, search and seizure without a warrant in hit-and-run cases. This power is crucial as investigations into these cases are time-sensitive.”
“If they drive until the age of 60, they would have to pay a total of $780 over the years to renew their licence, under the current system of periodic renewals, assuming, of course, the fee remains unchanged at $20 per year, and assuming that they stop driving at 60. With the new driving licence, they only have to pay $50, provided they do not lose or damage their driving licence. Motorists will also no longer need to worry about the hassle of renewing their licences every year or every three years. If their licence is lost or damaged, then they would have to pay $25 for a replacement. These changes will affect a large number of Singaporeans, and Members' constituents may have questions regarding the new driving licence. The Traffic Police will send a letter to every household informing them about the changes. They will also post a list of questions and answers on their Internet website to explain the details. I had earlier on asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute to all Members a copy of the questions and answers, and the press release on the new driving licence. I hope Members will find these materials useful. Deletion of section 62A (2) and section 62A (3) of the Road Traffic Act We are also taking the opportunity to delete some obsolete sections in the Road Traffic Act. In 1990, my Ministry introduced section 62A(1) to disallow drivers above 70 years of age from driving heavy vehicles. At that time, we gave elderly drivers a three-year grace period, up till April 1993, to comply with this new provision. This was to ensure that no elderly driver would suddenly be deprived of a livelihood. Sections 62A(2) and (3) provided for this 3-year grace period. Now that the grace period is long over, these two provisions are therefore obsolete and will be repealed.”
“However, foreigners who convert their native driving licences to the new photocard driving licence will not receive the lifetime licence, but one that is valid for a maximum period of five years. This is because many of them will not be working in Singapore after five years. They will not need the Singapore licence when they do not live and work here anymore. If they do, they can renew their licence. Road safety will not be compromised by the introduction of the new lifetime driving licence. As is the case now, elderly drivers will still be required to undergo regular medical checks at age 60, 63 and every year thereafter to certify their fitness to drive, in order to retain their licences. The Traffic Police also has several measures in place to revoke, suspend and disqualify the licences of incompetent drivers, such as the Driver Improvement Points System. The new photocard driving licence will be introduced in December this year. Existing drivers will only need to obtain the new driving licence upon the expiry of their existing paper driving licences. For example, if a motorist currently holds a licence that expires in July 2003, he will only be able to obtain the new photocard driving licence in July next year. There is therefore no need to rush to obtain the new driving licence. All drivers will be able to obtain it progressively, as their existing paper licences expire. The introduction of the new driving licence will bring greater convenience and reduce cost for licence holders. Motorists will only pay a fee of $50 to obtain the new driving licence, instead of the $20 or $60 they pay every one or three years currently. Traffic Police informed me that most drivers obtain their driving licence around the age of 21.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." New driving licence The Police currently issues driving licences to those who pass the driving test. The driving licence serves as a reference document not just for the Police but also other interested parties like insurance and car rental companies, overseas traffic authorities and employers. The existing driving licence has remained unchanged since 1969. It is made of paper, flimsy, and awkward to carry around in standard card holders. Unlike the driving licences of many other countries, it does not bear a photograph of the licence holder. Under the current system, drivers are required to renew their licences once every one or three years, paying a fee of $20 or $60 respectively. Each year, approximately 700,000 people renew their licences, with about 62% of drivers renewing their licences for one year, while the remaining 38% of drivers renew their licences for three years. This current system of regular renewals was introduced a long time ago when the lack of computer technology made it difficult to retrieve or check licensing records that were more than three years old. This Bill proposes to amend the Road Traffic Act to introduce a new driving licence. This driving licence will be durable, credit-card sized and will bear a photograph of the licence holder. The new driving licence will also be valid for life for Singaporean citizens and permanent residents. Technology now allows Traffic Police to maintain licence records over long periods of time. This system of lifetime driving licences is already in place in several European countries, such as Belgium, France, Germany, Norway and Switzerland.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had three long days of debate. A few Bills had been introduced on Monday. I propose that Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 22nd July 2002. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 22nd July 2002." Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock pm to Monday, 22nd July 2002.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, point of order. I do not want the Minister for Transport to rush through his reply like a high-speed train. May I seek your consent and general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45(8), to remove the time limit to enable the Minister for Transport to finish his speech?”
“- [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. TRADE DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.35 pm”
“Clause 21 of the Bill allows a Judge to order forfeiture of property owned or controlled by or on behalf of any terrorist or terrorist entity. The order of forfeiture may also be made if the property has been or will be used to facilitate or carry out a terrorist act. There is no requirement to have a conviction first of the offences of providing or collecting property for terrorist acts, providing property and services for terrorist purposes, use or possession of property for terrorist purposes and dealing with property of terrorists. This is because the intention is to ensure that terrorist properties can be confiscated by the Government. But let me assure Members that strong evidence will be adduced before the Attorney-General applies to a Judge for such a forfeiture order. Clause 16 of the Bill also allows a person appointed to destroy seized properties that have little or no value. But the person must first apply to the Judge for the destruction order. In other words, he cannot say that, "I do not like this thing lying on my desk", and then he starts to destroy it. He will have to apply to the court for such an order. Mdm Ho's suggestion that property which may bear interest should be held in an interest-bearing account may not reap practical gains. We may not seize large assets or properties which may bear interest. If a legal requirement is then imposed to subject all properties which bear interest to be held in interest-bearing accounts, this may result in generating more administrative work. Sir, I believe I have dealt with all the points raised by the Members. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.”
“Clause 12 of the Bill provides that an affidavit in support of the application for a warrant of search and seizure of terrorist property may be made by an investigation officer based on his information and belief, and such information and belief are the result of investigations conducted by the investigation officer, who would most likely be the police officer or a Commercial Affairs officer. He would not act just because he had a dream the night before and said, "I believe and, therefore, I act." They do not act like that. I do not think we can allow him to act like that too. So he must conduct an investigation and show that there are indeed reasonable grounds for his belief. The Attorney-General, therefore, does not rely on hearsay or mere information received. He will ask the investigation officer, "What have you found in the investigation?" and satisfy him before he applies to the court for the issuance of a search and seizure warrant. The House may wish to note that clause 11 of the Bill provides that the court may require undertakings to be given in respect of application for warrants or restraint order, and the undertaking is a form of check to prevent any abuse of powers. The indemnity is to ensure that the law enforcement agencies investigating a case must have sufficient grounds before applying for a warrant for seizure or a restraint order. So he does not just act on impulse. Proof based on the balance of probability is the standard employed under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act for the forfeiture of properties or proceeds derived from drug trafficking and other serious crimes. The Bill, therefore, maintains the same standard of proof for the purpose of forfeiture.”
“I do not think we should just simply leave things be and leave it to the conscience and the sense of responsibility of individuals to report a terrorist act or financing of such act, and not put this into the law. If everybody does behave responsibly and acts with conscience, I think we do not need any laws. We will then be living in utopia. But we know that we are living on the earth. So it cannot be done. Therefore, it is better that we provide for this in the legislation to ensure that if family members do know, and it can be seen and shown that they do know, then it is their duty to make such a report to the Police. But, of course, in the investigation, we shall be thorough about this. Mdm Ho's suggestion to exempt information received because of privileged information, eg, in the case of lawyers, I do not think this is necessary because clause 8(4) of the Bill provides that it shall be a defence for a person charged for failure to prove that he has reasonable excuse for not making the disclosure and it shall be left to the court to decide on the merits of each case. Mdm Ho also asked what extent the Attorney-General rely on information and belief to apply to a Judge to issue seizure and search warrants, and she asked if the burden of proof should be higher than the balance of probability, and whether a conviction of terrorism should be made first before forfeiture should take place. Her view is that no one should have the power to destroy property of little or no value unless it is ordered by the Judge to do so. She also proposes that seized property which may bear interest be held in an interest-bearing account. Let me address her questions in sequence.”
“Although the Bill does not provide for the offence of malicious accusation, this is not different from, say, defaming a person. The person so defamed or accused can always sue the person making the defamatory statement or accusation. If the accusation is made to a police officer, then the accuser can also be charged under the Penal Code. For example, section 182 of the Penal Code makes an offence for any person to give any public servant any information to cause such public servant to use the lawful powers to the injury or annoyance of any person. A person who is convicted under section 182 can be sentenced to imprisonment, as well as to a fine. So, if a person falsely or maliciously reported his neighbour for committing a terrorist act or activity to a police officer, he can be dealt with under the Penal Code, and there is no need to put this provision in the Bill. The Penal Code is adequate to deal with such offenders. Let me now turn to some of the points raised by Mdm Ho. Mdm Ho's view is that we are placing too much onus on the family members, like the spouse, children, parents or siblings, because, she says, they are more likely than not to have knowledge of the terrorist affairs. But I think this is debatable. Let me give an example of the Jemaah Islamiyah group. Many of their family members actually claimed that they did not know. So I do not think it is fair to say that their spouse or immediate family members will definitely know, and therefore if they report the matter, it may lead to a break-up of families, like in the case during the Cultural Revolution. I think the problem of the Cultural Revolution is a totally different one.”
“The same standard is also found under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act in respect of forfeiture of proceeds derived from drug trafficking and other serious crimes. The Bill therefore maintains the same standard of proof for the purpose of forfeiture. Further, this standard on the balance of probability is also used in the Canada Anti-Terrorism Act. So, let me assure the House that, in conducting investigations into these offences, the enforcement agencies will strive to obtain the best evidence to support the allegations. Regarding the onus imposed on corporate bodies, which is also a question raised by Mr Andy Gan, to make sure that we do not unnecessarily restrict the businesses of our companies, clause 35, as we have put it there, is a standard provision commonly found in the existing Acts as well. It is not something that we just created out of nowhere. A body corporate can only act through its officers. It is not unreasonable therefore to expect officers of a body corporate to be responsible for the acts of a company, such that the officers must give an account of themselves if the company commits an offence. Let me give Members examples of similar provisions in other legislation. They are the Electricity Act 2001, the Gas Act 2001, the Planning Act, the Civil Defence Act, the Building Control Act, the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act and, finally, the Fire Safety Act. So, this question of duty of the corporate officers is also clearly defined in other similar legislation that I have just cited. Prof. Chin is concerned about people who make malicious complaints, leading to unnecessary investigations and the accused party suffering anxiety and stress.”
“For example, any person convicted of providing or collecting property for terrorist acts can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 10 years, or to a fine of up to $100,000. Since the offences are serious in nature, then we have deliberately only targeted the provisions against persons who have knowingly or intentionally committed such acts. This will ensure that the innocent persons are not prosecuted for such offences. But if there is evidence to show that the person has turned a blind eye to the commission of such acts, then the same provisions will allow us to prosecute him, as these provisions also contain a lower threshold of "having reasonable grounds to believe" in cases where it is not possible to prove that the person has wilfully or knowingly committed such acts. So I think there is enough flexibility built into the legislation to enable us to deal effectively with the various types of offenders. Prof. Chin and Mdm Ho, I believe, also expressed concern on the order of forfeiture and the Judge has to be satisfied on the balance of probability, and also the question about ex parte. Let me first clarify Prof. Chin's point on ex parte. The application for the issue of warrant of seizure or restraint order under clause 11 is made ex parte because there is a need to ensure that the offenders do not have a chance to dispose of their properties. But once the property is seized or restrained under clause 11, the forfeiture application, which is made under clause 24, is not made ex parte. The owner of the property will have a right to be heard before the Judge orders forfeiture of the property. As for the use of balance of probability as a standard of proof for forfeiture, this is not something new that we are doing.”
“If these were all, then, of course, those who were found and convicted subsequently will be convicted as robbers and murderers. But when it was established that they were actually members of the CPM Marxist-Leninist Faction and had robbed to augment the CPM's funds, then, obviously, they were more than just ordinary robbers and murderers. The two persons they murdered under the CPM's instruction were the Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman in 1974, and the Chief Police Officer of Perak, Tan Sri Koo Chong Kong in 1975. So, again, by definition under our Bill, we will consider them as terrorists. Prof. Chin is correct in asserting that the key difference between a purely criminal act and one that amounts to a terrorist act lies much in the intent or the motive established. But this is not unique to the current Bill. Intent is the key ingredient in determining culpability, even in purely criminal actions and offences. Often, in criminal cases, there may potentially be more than one offence in the laws which can apply to the same action and the same set of circumstances. Which one to proceed with requires not only interpretation, but commonsense and judgment. Let me assure Prof. Chin that there is no lapse in the handling of such situations in criminal cases. In determining offences under this particular Bill, the law will always be applied with care and due diligence. We will always be very careful, and not simply abuse the powers provided for in the Act. On the question of burden, there is indeed a high burden on the prosecution, because the offences created by the Convention and the Bill are very serious in nature.”
“In my view, to define "terrorist act" to include any seizable criminal offence may be too wide and over-inclusive. We should target our laws against offences which clearly have a nexus with terrorism. Seizable offences, with reference to non-Penal Code offences, are offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or more. Prof. Chin has also raised the example of a gunman who had robbed a goldsmith shop, and asked if his property can be seized or forfeited. Let me reiterate that the main focus of this Bill is not about criminalising terrorist acts, but about criminalising the financing of terrorist acts. As such, whether the robber's property will be forfeited will depend on whether a person who has committed any of those provisions relating to the financing of terrorist acts. A mere commission of a robbery will not make his property liable to seizure or forfeiture under the law even if he had, in carrying out robbery, intimidated a section of the people around the shops. Let me give a real life example of this. On 18th May 2001, members of the Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia (KMM), staged a robbery of the Southern Bank in Peninsular Malaysia. They were initially regarded as robbers. But investigations subsequently revealed that their actions were in support of the KMM, which aimed to wage a holy war against the Malaysian government to establish a purist Islamic state. Obviously, then they were more than just ordinary robbers. So, by our definition, they will be regarded as terrorists. And this is not the only example that happened last year. In the mid-1970s, three gunmen robbed a bank of RM122,000 in Petaling Jaya. Later, it was found that they were also responsible for two murders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Prof. Chin suggested that the use of the word such as "serious" in the definition of "terrorist act" in the Bill may be too restrictive. The reasons for this restrictive definition are as follows: Firstly, this is a Bill which gives effect to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. As such, the Bill's definition of "terrorist act" therefore adopts the wording of the Convention, and they are totally consistent with what is being used in other countries as well. The Convention's definition of "terrorist act" includes an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian when the purpose of such act is to intimidate the population or to compel a government to do or refrain from doing any act. Secondly, Singapore is not alone in adopting such a definition. Our definition is also consistent with the definition used in other countries' similar legislation on terrorism in the Commonwealth countries, such as the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000, Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act and the Australia's Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Bill. Since this Bill is to give effect to an International Convention, there is no reason for us to deviate from the international standards adopted. Finally, this is also to maintain consistency with the definition of "terrorist acts" used in our own law, and that law is the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations. So, all those words we find in this particular Bill are exactly the same as what we already have in our United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations. We are not doing anything different. Prof. Chin has suggested that anyone planning a criminal act which amounts to a seizable offence should be caught by the definition of "terrorist act".”
“I am sure that this Bill will be an important addition to the armoury of laws that would protect Singapore from the terrorists and ensure that we are not a safe harbour for those who are involved in supporting or financing such activities. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, this reversal of the burden of proof is a serious one, affecting the presumption of innocence that our criminal justice system is based on. Departures from this principle must be fully justified. I would ask the Minister what are the reasons for imposing on directors, managers, partners, secretaries and the like, this burden of exoneration. Again, we would want to be extra careful in accusing anyone of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation. I hope that we will receive assurances from the Minister that the utmost care will be taken to obtain the best evidence against individuals or institutions before proceedings under this Bill are commenced against them. Sir, the September 11 incident has changed the world, and significantly affected the attitude of everyone when talking about the dangers of terrorist attacks. We must however not be paranoid, and we must guard against those who might take advantage of the current fear and paranoia to harm others by false accusations. I regret that while there is a duty on everyone to disclose what they suspect to be financial operations in aid of terrorism, there is no provision that would make it a criminal offence for someone to falsely and maliciously accuse another of such activities. The Bill does provide for the protection of those who made genuine disclosures, even if mistaken. But it does not provide for sanctions against those who might maliciously accuse their neighbours or business opponents of such activities. I would like to know what the Minister intends to do about such cases, if they do occur. Sir, we now live under the shadow of the terrorists. This Bill is a necessary measure in the global fight against terrorism.”
“First, let me say that I agree with the careful drafting of clauses 3 to 7, providing for the prohibitions against the collection, provision, possession or dealing of property to aid terrorist acts. Here, the burden on the prosecution is a heavy one, to prove beyond reasonable doubt. There are various types of intent - to collect, provide, possess or deal with property to support or facilitate terrorist acts. This is as it should be. Having said that, I would like to make two other references to the standard of proof that may give rise to concerns. The first relates to the power of the Judge to forfeit property. The Judge only has to be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the property is one that is owned or controlled by the terrorist entity, or that it is used or about to be used by terrorists, given the seriousness of forfeiture orders, should the standard of proof not be higher? Forfeiture orders may result in the closure of businesses or the eviction of occupants in properties so forfeited. I would like the Minister to assure this House that the relevant authorities will ensure that the best proof be provided before an application for forfeiture is made. This is especially so as the application can be ex parte. The second issue I wish to raise is that clause 35 provides that a partner, director or manager, and other types of employees such as the secretary, may be guilty of one or more of the offences if his company, firm or society, is proved to have committed one of the prohibition offences set out in the Bill. Sir, clause 35 provides that the accused then has to exonerate himself by proving that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance, and that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent such an offence.”
“Anyone planning a criminal act that would amount to a seizable offence, with the appropriate intent should, I would have thought, be enough to trigger this provision. The key difference between a criminal act and one that amounts to a terrorist act seems to be in the intent. If the act is one of the nine, done with the intention to influence or compel any government or international organisation to do or not do something, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, it amounts to a terrorist act. This is a good attempt at defining terrorist acts, but it requires a great deal of care in interpreting or using it. To take one example, where a gunman robs a goldsmiths shop, and puts all those around him in fear - shop assistants, members of the public nearby, customers - he can actually qualify as a terrorist under that definition, because he threatens serious violence to persons with the intent to intimidate a section of the public under the definition. Does that mean that his property can be forfeited? Of course, if he robs the shop, intending to benefit a terrorist entity, he is within the definition. I hope the Minister will ensure that the definition will be applied with care, and not misused. Sir, one of the fundamental principles in criminal justice is the burden and standard of proof. Everyone knows that the burden on the prosecution is to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is to ensure the public's confidence in the administration of criminal justice, that no one should be subjected to punishment without strong proof. The Bill has some provisions that seem to affect this fundamental principle.”