1 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education what is the current percentage of children who enter Primary 1 without completing at least three years of preschool (including nursery, kindergarten 1 and kindergarten 2).
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Education): For the cohort of Singaporean children who entered Primary 1 in 2019, about nine in 10 were enrolled in preschools from age four onwards and would have had at least three years in preschool. At least 99% would have had some preschool experience before starting Primary 1.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the quick reply. I would like to ask, of this percentage of children – although it is just one in 10 – were there any studies done to see or to track their progress: one, over their academic progression or performance; and two, over their physical or health literacy across their Primary and Secondary school days.
If there were studies made, would the Minister of State be able to share with us the data, and if there were no studies, would one be conducted in the future?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. We currently do not track the outcomes of children who did not attend preschool and into Primary school and beyond. This is something we can look into.
But I would like to add several other interventions that we are doing. Firstly, we recognise the importance of preschool education in the early years for a child's development, in particular, for those who come from less advantaged backgrounds. MSF and ECDA have thus been working very hard to ensure the provision of accessible, affordable as well as quality preschool services. This is to ensure that every child would have a good start in life.
We also follow up with proactive outreach and targeted assistance to facilitate the enrolment of those children from less advantaged backgrounds. For instance, via ECDA's Preschool Outreach Programme, we work actively with the community to reach out to families of Singaporean children aged three years and above who are not attending preschool. Our community outreach partners will conduct house visits and work closely with the families to facilitate their child's enrolment into preschool. This can also take the form of helping them with registration forms and seeing what other impediments they may face.
We are also expanding the KidSTART programme, which specifically supports children in the areas that the Member mentioned – health, nutritional needs. We likewise work with the families through house visits, get to know the families better, get to know the children better, to see how we can support them to ensure that there is regular attendance at preschool.
One other thing that I wanted to mention is that we also have another gateway at Primary 1 are screened in the first term to see if they need additional help through the Learning Support Programme or Learning Support for Mathematics.
Those are the various interventions we put in place to ensure that children have access to quality preschool, that is accessible and affordable. For children who may not have had regular attendance in preschool, when they come to Primary 1, we still have interventions to make sure that they do not lag behind.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): I have two supplementary questions. Will MOE consider making preschool part of compulsory education and also, to increase the KiFAS minimum requirement of one-day attendance per month to qualify for the subsidy, which is the current status? We need to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds attend preschool more regularly.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her questions. As I had shared earlier, we recognise the importance of the preschool years in a child's development, particularly for children from less advantaged backgrounds. But we also recognise that it is important to preserve some parental choice because they may also have some views on how they would like to educate children in the early years. Some of them may feel that there is some advantage in some forms of home-schooling, for instance. So, rather than a broad policy of compulsory education in the preschool years, what we have strived to do is to ensure that there is accessible, affordable and quality preschool, so that for any family who has a child and wants to put the child through preschool, there are options available for them.
In my earlier answer to Member Dr Wan Rizal, I have shared various interventions – be it through KidSTART or through the outreach programmes that we have where we build connectivity with families to enable them and support them in sending their children to preschool.
On the second question from the Member, the Ministry will take a look at the suggestion that she made.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria and Process to Prefer Charges for Capital Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the criteria and process to prefer charges for capital offences.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, capital offences are very serious offences, such as murder, kidnapping, firearms offences and trafficking large quantities of drugs.
In cases where preliminary investigations reveal that a capital offence may have been committed by an accused person, a holding charge will be tendered against the accused person in Court. The accused person will be held in remand while further investigations are conducted.
After law enforcement agencies have completed their investigations, they will make their recommendations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers or AGC. AGC will review the evidence and the circumstances of the case holistically, before exercising its prosecutorial discretion to decide on an appropriate course of action – whether to proceed with the capital charge, lesser charge or charges, or to withdraw the charge.
Where there are multiple accused persons allegedly involved in the same capital case, the same holding charge may be tendered against all of them initially. After investigations are completed, AGC will consider the sufficiency of the evidence gathered so far, and the specific role of each accused person. The eventual position taken against each accused person would be based on the evidence available and their role in the case, and may therefore differ.
I will illustrate this with the Downtown East incident in 2010. In the incident, the victim was attacked by a group of 12 Chinese persons in the aftermath of a settlement talk. Five of the 12 accused persons had armed themselves with knives, a screwdriver and a bottle of chilli sauce prior to the settlement talk. During the talk, the accused persons accused the victim of staring at them. They surrounded the victim. Those armed used their weapons to stab and slash the victim, while others punched the victim. The victim eventually passed away due to multiple incised wounds.
Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against the accused persons. After consideration of the evidence available and the roles played by the accused persons in the incident, the charges were amended to rioting for those who had known that there would be a fight, but did not know that others in their group were armed; rioting with a deadly weapon for those who had known that there would be a fight and that others in their group were armed; and culpable homicide not amounting to murder for those armed and actively attacking the victim. Members can see the different categories of involvement.
In line with their respective roles in the incident, the accused persons in the first group received sentences of about three to five years’ imprisonment and three to six strokes of the cane; those in the second group received sentences of five to six years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane; and those in the third group received sentences of seven to 12 years’ imprisonment and five to 12 strokes of the cane.
I will illustrate with another incident which took place around Pandan Loop in 2014. There were four Indian accused persons, which I will refer to as “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. Prior to the attack, “A” told the three other accused persons that “A” and “B” would beat up the victim, “C” would act as a lookout and “D” would wait in the pick-up. “A” and “B” then took a metal rod each from the back of the pick-up and walked towards the Pandan Loop industrial estate. The victim was subsequently found dead from head injuries due to direct blunt force trauma. “A” fled Singapore for India shortly after the incident.
Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against “B”, “C” and “D”. Subsequently, there was careful consideration of the evidence and the respective roles played by them. It was noted that “A” was the main perpetrator and the three other accused persons knew that metal rods would be used before the incident, but there was no prior discussion to cause death to the victim. The charges against the three accused persons were therefore amended to voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon with common intention. “B” was eventually sentenced to three years nine months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane, while “C” and “D” were sentenced to three years six months’ imprisonment.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for the clarification and answer. As a lawyer, I fully appreciate and understand the sentencing precedents and principles. Every case depends on its specific facts and extenuating circumstance, and not all of these facts may be readily available or obviously apparent to members of the public or the media.
\t
\tSo, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State, if I may. There has been some public discussion on the sentences handed out in the Orchard Towers case. Can I ask the Minister of State's view on the sentences meted out and whether this is in accordance with the precedents and sentencing principles that have been clarified earlier?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we are aware of the public discussions on the Orchard Towers case. I think the common feedback that we received is that some of the sentences given look light, considering that someone has been killed.
As I have explained earlier in my reply, for cases like that where it involves multiple offenders, the eventual charges and also the resultant sentences have to take into account of the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons. Sir, if I may, since the Member asked about the Orchard Towers case, I would like to share some insights of the case and see how we can share and really see that the sentences that had been rolled out, had been looking at the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons, and so that it gives a clarity to the public as well.
In the Orchard Towers case, there are seven accused persons. Four have pleaded guilty to the respective charges. Proceedings for the other three accused persons are on-going.
Let me briefly recap the case. The seven accused persons were drinking at Orchard Towers. When the group was leaving Orchard Towers, the deceased confronted them. Four of the seven accused – Tan Sen Yang, Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow Yu Zhen and Joel Tan Yun Sheng – got into a fight with the deceased.
Tan Sen Yang was allegedly in possession of a knife and slashed the deceased a few times. The deceased eventually passed away from the knife injuries. Tan Sen Yang has been charged for murder and the section 300(c) of the penal code. This offence carries the death penalty or life imprisonment with caning. His case is still on-going.
Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan kicked and punched the deceased during the fight. They did not plan to assault the deceased and did not know Tan Sen Yang would use a weapon during the fight. As the attack by Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan caused two minor and non-fatal abrasions on the deceased body, they were eventually charged with, and pleaded guilty to voluntary causing hurt with common intention.
As only abrasions were caused, Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan would have been liable for a fine only, based on the sentencing guidelines set in a High Court judgment. However, taking into account the aggravating factors, such as their involvement in group violence and the public disquiet caused given that the fight took place in public, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan were given one months' imprisonment. As Ang Da Yuan had previously been convicted of violent crime offences, he was given a higher sentence of two months' imprisonment.
As Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan knew that Tan Sen Yang was carrying a weapon, but continued to remain in his company, they were also charged with consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. Ang Da Yuan was given another six months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, while Natalie Siow was given another five months' imprisonment which was served concurrently with the other sentence, but no caning as she is a female. This charge was taken into consideration in sentencing for Joel Tan. These sentences were consistent with the sentencing benchmarks set by the Courts.
The remaining three accused persons, Tan Hong Sheng, Loo Boon Chong and Chan Jia Xing were not involved in the fight.
That said, Tan Hong Sheng and Loo Boon Chong each face a pending charge of consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. Loo Boon Chong also faces a pending charge of perverting the course of justice. Their cases are on-going.
Chan Jia Xing tried to stop the fight and was co-operative with Police investigations. Hence, he was given a 12-month conditional warning for consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. He has been warned that no leniency would be accorded to him should he re-offend during this period, and he may still be charged for the offence.
There were also some comments that the accused persons have received lenient sentences because of their race. These allegations are totally baseless and highly irresponsible. I assure the House that our criminal justice system does not give any preferential treatment based on race, religion, socio-economic status, educational achievements and so on. Everyone is treated equally and fairly.
As I have explained, the sentences eventually given to an accused, depends on the evidence and his role. In the Downtown East example I gave earlier, the sentences given out to the 12 Chinese offenders ranged from three years and three strokes of the cane, to 12 years and 12 strokes of the cane.
Sir, if I may, I will give another example – the St James Power Station incident in 2017. There were four Malay accused persons, which I will refer to as \"A\", \"B\", \"C\" and \"D\". After an argument between \"A\" and the Indian victim's group in a club at St James Power Station, \"A\" felt aggrieved and contacted \"B\" who rallied \"C\" and \"D\" to arrive at the club, with the intention to attack the victim's group. When \"B\" stepped away for a phone call, \"C\" who was armed with a foldable knife, punched the victim and stabbed him repeatedly, while \"A\" and \"D\" punched and kicked the victim. The victim died from stab wounds to the thorax and head. When \"B\" returned to the club entrance later, the attack by \"A\", \"C\" and \"D\" had already been completed.
Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against the accused persons. After consideration of the evidence available and the roles played by the accused persons, the charges were amended.
First, only \"C\" was charged with murder, as he brought along and used a weapon. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
Second, \"D\" was charged with voluntary causing grievous hurt with common intention. He was sentenced to eight years six months' imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane. Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with common intention was taken into consideration for sentencing.
Third, \"A\" was charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt with common intention. He was sentenced to five years six months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapon with common intention was taken into consideration for sentencing.
Fourth, \"B\" was charged with harbouring of offenders. He was sentenced to one year six months' imprisonment, and another charge of abetment of voluntarily causing hurt was taken into consideration for sentencing.
Overall, the offenders' charges in this case reflected the premeditated plan to attack the deceased, their respective culpability and involvement and the sentences imposed were similarly consistent with sentencing benchmarks. So, let me emphasise again: there is no preferential treatment based on race, religion, socio-economic status or educational achievements.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors in Deciding Number of People for Various Gatherings in Phase Three of Safe Reopening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health regarding the possible Phase Three opening by end-December 2020 (a) what factors are taken into account when deciding on the maximum number of people allowed for gatherings, weddings and other events; (b) what will be the safeguards and measures in place to ensure compliance when more activities resume on a larger scale; and (c) what plans are in place should there be a spike of COVID-19 cases in Phase Three and whether that includes reversion to Phase Two.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, the Multi-Ministry Task Force announced our road map to Phase Three on 20 October 2020. Just to recap, Phase Three is not a return to the pre-COVID-19 status quo, but a new normal which will last until such time the rest of the world also has the virus under tight control or when effective treatments or vaccines are widely available. We must prepare ourselves for a Phase Three that could last for a prolonged period – potentially a year or more. In this context, we need to put in place the measures and equip ourselves with the tools which will enable us to stay safe, as we allow greater flexibility to live, work and even celebrate major life events.
In determining the capacity limits for events in Phase Three, we took into account various factors such as the frequency at which the activity takes place, the potential risk factors inherent to the nature of the event and whether additional safety measures can be effectively put in place to limit or mitigate these risks.
Our analysis of how COVID-19 transmission takes place indicates that the probability of transmission tends to be higher in social settings. In Singapore, we saw large clusters forming due to the SAFRA Jurong dinner and the Mei Hwan Drive condominium family get-together which took place over Chinese New Year. It is natural to lower our guard when we are among family and friends.
When we have meals together, the risk is higher as masks must be removed while eating and drinking. Many of us go out for meals practically every day and with different groups, the risk is multiplied many times. Hence, we have taken a cautious approach in expanding group sizes. We are considering an increase in the group size limit from the current five persons to eight persons in Phase Three for dining and social gathering. Taking banquet tables as an example, many used to seat around 10 people before COVID-19. So, eight persons is about the maximum that these tables can take while allowing some additional distancing compared to the past.
As the World Health Organization puts it, any size of gathering poses a risk of COVID-19 transmission. That is why many countries facing a surge in COVID-19 infections have had to impose lockdowns and prohibit social gatherings. But disallowing social gatherings for prolonged period of time is not tenable nor desirable. We need to strike a balance. So, while we now allow social gatherings, we should still limit our circle of close contacts to reduce the risk of spread to a large number of people if an infected person happens to be in the group. Therefore, allowing gatherings of up to eight in Phase Three, strikes a careful balance between maintaining safe distancing and allowing large groups to come together.
In settings where safe management measures can be effectively imposed to mitigate risks and where interactions between different groups can be managed, we can allow a higher capacity limit, especially for important events. Weddings, for example, are key milestones in life, where friends and family come together to celebrate this joyous occasion. These, however, are high risk settings, as friends and family would naturally have the tendency to want to socialise and mix across groups and often unmasked as we allow food and drinks too. We have seen clusters arising from weddings in places as diverse as India, Jordan, New Zealand, the United States and many other countries.
\t
However, there have been pleas to raise the cap on number of wedding participants beyond the current limit of 100 in zones or timeslots of no more than 50 each. For such high risk events, we will need to put in place additional measures to ensure that they can be conducted safely. For example, guests are already not supposed to mingle beyond their groups of five at their table and they must use SafeEntry and TraceTogether. This allows more family and friends to participate, while still minimising the total number of interactions.
Going forward, one key enabler that could allow more activities to resume, and potentially at higher capacity limits, is COVID-19 testing. We are piloting the use of pre-event testing to allow higher risk activities including weddings to scale up safely, by reducing the probability of a COVID-19 case being present at the event, thereby reducing the risk of transmission. Given the need for a short turnaround time for such testing prior to the events, we are using alternative test kits such as antigen rapid tests which can return fairly accurate results quickly, within half an hour or so. However, they are not as accurate as the Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR tests which remains the definitive test for the confirmation of COVID-19 cases. As such, while pre-event testing helps to reduce the probability that a COVID-positive case is present at the event, it cannot eliminate it totally, and safe management measures will still have to be observed at the event.
Another key enabler is a enhanced contact tracing capability. We are progressively rolling out TraceTogether-only SafeEntry to ensure that all those who are visiting places where they are likely to be in contact with many others for prolonged periods, or where human traffic is high, have the TraceTogether App or Token. This is to speed up contact tracing efforts should someone you had been in close contact with at the event become a COVID-19 patient, and to allow us to provide you with medical care early if you become infected.
The Government will continue to work with businesses and premise owners to ensure that they maintain the appropriate safe management measures, and regularly remind their employees and associates to comply with these measures. Our Safe Distancing Ambassadors and Enforcement Officers will be on the ground to advise the public on safe distancing measures and take enforcement actions where necessary. We must set the right spirit across society and make sure all of us remain committed to maintaining the discipline that will keep us safe, even if we progress to Phase Three. In fact, even more so when we progress to Phase Three.
Our objective in Phase Three is to reach a steady state of permitted economic and social activities until an effective vaccine or treatment is widely available. If we can put in place more enablers and risk-mitigating measures that allow for further opening and scaling up of activities, we will. On the other hand, if and where conditions worsen, we will take targeted measures too. We must not let our guard down and become lax in adherence to safe management measures, as so doing could result in a resurgence of COVID-19 cases, putting all our sacrifices thus far to waste.
While we are in a much better position today than we were earlier in the year to manage possible spikes in the number of cases, we must not be complacent. We have ramped up our healthcare capacity, contact tracing and testing capabilities, and put in place extensive safe management measures in the community, workplaces and dormitories. We have set up our defences at our borders, so that even as we welcome business partners and friends from overseas back to Singapore, we will be able to do so safely. However, we must remain vigilant. Should there be a spike in cases, we need to respond swiftly and decisively. We cannot rule out the need to re-impose measures or introduce new measures in order to keep the virus under control.
To continue on our steady path to Phase Three, each of us must play our part to adhere to safe management measures, maintain good personal hygiene and actively participate in the TraceTogether programme. Together, we will arrive at Phase Three and emerge stronger ultimately.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Some do not want to attend the large-scale events, even weddings because of their fear of doing the tests. Couples have given feedback that some of the elderly and their guests will actually decline the wedding invitations. They are saying it is actually like restaurant dining, but just that there are 10 tables of five each and the rule of no inter-table mingling is allowed as well. Can that be considered as the way for weddings?
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: This is a question that the taskforce has debated to and fro, and we have decided that we need to calibrate our measures very carefully. We do understand the concerns of guests including the wedding party. But we have to bear in mind that wedding dinners are quite different from a similar dinner at a restaurant. If you go to a restaurant with, say, 10 tables with five persons each, that would be 50. It is quite different from a wedding dinner reception with 50 people. Because if you do go to a restaurant with 10 tables of five each, chances are not all of them know each other. The intermingling between the tables is very minimal. We do allow families now to go together and book two tables, but we also encourage them to minimise intermingling.
But at a wedding reception, it is quite different. Even before you go into the wedding dinner, they will be socialising outside the event and in the banquet hall. Even if you try to enforce, it is very difficult. You really do not want to have to stop the wedding, disrupt the wedding and issue them summons, while the wedding is on-going. So, it is something that we need to calibrate very carefully.
And also bearing in mind that in the wedding environment, we do expect the wedding couple to take pictures with different tables, different groups. We also try to mitigate the risk exposure, as they do so. There are some rules but it is not possible to prohibit photo-taking. So, we understand the needs of the wedding couple and we try to accommodate, but the risk factor is quite different from a normal dinner.
On top of that, all of us who have attended wedding dinners also know that wedding dinners sometimes can stretch to a couple of hours or even longer, whereas a normal dinner tends to be much shorter.
So, although they may seem similar, actually the risk factors are quite different. And this has also been borne out in the wedding celebrations in other countries that we have seen, that have culminated into big clusters. Therefore, we want to be careful.
We do understand that the pre-event testing, antigen rapid tests, can be frightening and scary. That is why we are doing pilot testing to make sure that it is reasonably comfortable. But, of course, there is still some inconvenience that you have to face with. If you are tested positive, unfortunately, your plan to attend the wedding may be squashed. Therefore, for the couple, we encourage them to go for testing even before the day of the wedding dinner because you do not really want to disrupt the couple themselves if they were already at the dinner.
So, be assured that we are looking at this quite thoroughly. And we are doing pilots so that we can iron out some of these issues and concerns that the wedding couples may have. But as it is today, you do not have to go for testing, you can have a wedding up to a hundred, with groups of no more than 50 each. You can have three tables, four tables, but no more than 50 per group, and each table must have no more than five persons. So, this is the current rule on weddings. Under the current rule, you are not required to be tested but we are looking at whether we can allow larger capacity. If we were to do so, we have to seriously consider whether we will require pre-event testing for such gatherings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"TraceTogether Tokens for Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the TraceTogether tokens have been distributed to all seniors; and (b) how does the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office ensure that citizens without smart phones and who have not been able to collect the TraceTogether token are able to access cinemas.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, as of 1 November, we have issued 570,000 TraceTogether or TT tokens. We started distribution in areas with a higher proportion of elderly residents, such as Tanjong Pagar and Jalan Besar. We have partnered with the Silver Generation Office to distribute TT tokens to seniors at their homes. We have also worked with the Agency for Integrated Care and MSF to distribute TT tokens to residents of nursing homes and community care facilities.
By now, residents of Jalan Besar, Tanjong Pagar, Bishan-Toa Payoh, Sengkang, Ang Mo Kio, Marsiling, Fuchun and Woodgrove would also have been able to collect a TT token at their Community Centres or CCs. Over the next few weeks, we will be gradually opening up collection points at all the remaining CCs across Singapore. Residents with a smart phone can use the TraceTogether app and do not need a TraceTogether token, but they are still able to collect a TT token should they wish to do so. We are preparing for the implementation of TraceTogether-only-SafeEntry at more venues, including at food and beverage outlets, malls and workplaces, with either the TraceTogether token or the TraceTogether app.
We will implement this – TraceTogether-only SafeEntry – at such venues when everyone who cannot download the TraceTogether app, has had a chance to collect their TraceTogether token. Meanwhile, other modes of SafeEntry check-ins will still be valid, in cinemas and other venues, as we allow time for TraceTogether token collection and for more residents to download the TraceTogether app, and for businesses to adjust.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and I would like to raise two supplementary questions to the Minister. If Speaker would allow me, I just want to share a bit of the context, so that the questions can be better understood.
\tMr Speaker: Keep it brief. Thank you.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: On 25 October, collection of TraceTogether tokens took place at the Clementi Mall. It was advertised on the TokenGoWhere website and I am told it was the first such collection to physically take place in Clementi town. My residents tell me the collection at the mall started at 11.00 am; 12 minutes later, my residents were told the tokens were no longer in stock; they had been fully distributed.
So, my question to the Senior Minister of State is as follows. Can the Minister tell us how many TraceTogether tokens were allocated for distribution at the Clementi Mall that day and, more broadly, for the heartland mall distribution sites, compared to potential demand in Clementi Town? Secondly, what lessons can we draw from the early distribution experiences, so that the Ministries can improve forecasting of demand including surge demand and pent-up demand?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his questions. We had designated the Community Centres as the main collection point for residents to collect their tokens. But on an opportunistic basis, early in this process, we had planned to set up mobile booths at selected shopping malls around Singapore for a variety of reasons: one, to make it more convenient; and the other is to also raise awareness and participation. Our assumptions at that time were that the people, who these tokens were designed for – people who perhaps did not have a smart phone or who were reluctant to use a smart phone – were not so aware of the programme and, perhaps, needed some degree of persuasion to join the programme. Hence, we had this plan to set up these pop-up booths in malls such as Clementi Mall.
We distributed 762 tokens at Clementi Mall on 25 October. The original plan was for the booth and all the booths to open for about four hours – 11 am to 3 pm. But indeed, the demand was very high. And so, we started distributing tokens early, at 10.30 am that morning, and extended the distribution all the way to 3.30 pm to allow the clearance of the queue of people who had come to collect their tokens.
Dr Tan asked about the lessons learnt. Firstly, we had not projected such high demand. We had anticipated that there would be a need to persuade more people to come and get on board the TraceTogether programme. Actually, we are very heartened by the response. It shows that residents understand the value of this digitally augmented contact tracing in keeping us all safe, they are convinced and understand all the various protections we have put in place and the intent behind this programme. The concern at that time was whether or not there will be enough demand. So, we wanted to be prudent in terms of the production and we launched the process early even as production was ramping up.
And so, the lesson learnt was at that time, we did not expect the surge in demand that had occurred. Now that we understand that that is so, we have ramped up production. We have monitored the situation, we will adjust our supply accordingly and we will increase the supply to keep up with demand as needed.
We had also planned for residents to pick up tokens from the CCs near them and we had not anticipated the extent to which people from all around Singapore would go to a various venues in order to collect the TraceTogether token. Hence, we have altered our distribution plan so that CCs are distributing tokens only to residents of that area.
But I would like to repeat the earlier point that we will only implement TraceTogether only SafeEntry process at venues when everyone who cannot download the app has had a chance to collect a TraceTogether token. I also want to reiterate that if you have the TraceTogether app on your phone, you do not need a token, although you are free to collect one.
We have discontinued distribution at mobile booths at the malls given my earlier comments, to avoid the queues and to avoid encouraging Singapore to travel all over to get these TraceTogether tokens. Dr Tan would perhaps like to know that residents of Clementi will be able to pick up their TraceTogether tokens at Clementi CC from 16 November onwards.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, if I may ask the Senior Minister of State, whether he can confirm that it is no longer compulsory for the TraceTogether token to be used at cinemas because it was reported in the press that it is compulsory with effect from 16 November 2020, whereas my constituency, my residents would only be able to get their TraceTogether tokens on 14 December, which is almost one month later. It is not just for Mountbatten but Marine Parade as well – Speaker's constituency, we will only be able to get it on 14 December and quite a number of our residents are quite senior.
The other question that I have for the Senior Minister of State is, what if the TraceTogether tokens are damaged or run out of battery or the battery is discharged? What is the process of replacement? Because, if everyone has already sort of collected and it is then made compulsory in venues like shopping malls, schools, cinemas, restaurants and if my token is damaged or the battery runs out, is it difficult to get a replacement? Because if it is, that means I cannot go anywhere until I get the replacement. Perhaps Senior Minister of State can clarify that.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for the questions. We will make sure that the roll-out plan with distribution to the various CCs has happened before the TraceTogether-only SafeEntry programme is made compulsory. But once we have given everybody a chance to collect the token, once we have given everybody a chance to download the app, then for these higher risk activities, these higher risk venues, we need a way to make sure that we can open up and have these activities and yet protect the progress that we have made in the COVID-19 pandemic fight.
And in order to have these higher risk activities, entry into those activities will require that the participant uses both SafeEntry and TraceTogether, the two limbs of our digital augmented contact tracing process. The way in which we do that, is we bring both processes together, using either the app or the token. Until the distribution is completed, other means of doing SafeEntry, such as using your NRIC will be available at these venues.
We will have a clear plan for replacement of damaged tokens or changing out the batteries for those batteries that are exhausted. We are going to have to calibrate that over time. At the moment, as I said earlier on, we had an unexpected surge in demand, so we are focusing our efforts on that. In the next few months, we will have to think of a replacement plan for one million tokens or two million tokens or whatever the number is in between.
So, I think after we get close to the end of our distribution process and we have a sense of what it is we have to manage over time, on a rolling basis, then we will come out and make it very clear how residents can exchange their tokens, replace their tokens, where and what the process will be. In the mean time, residents with damaged tokens or tokens with depleted batteries can go to CCs where tokens are being distributed to exchange it for another.
As we do so, we are beneficiaries of the partnership that we have with the People's Association, the CCs, but also the Agency of Integrated Care and the Silver Generation Office that has helped us then directly distribute tokens – I think more than 10,000 tokens have been directly distributed to seniors who have not been able to come down to the Community Centres. We will leverage on those types of processes and those types of partnerships to make sure this capability then continues to be available for Singaporeans in the future.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan: Cinema.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Yes. So, we will wait until after token distribution is completed before making it compulsory. We will make it available, but we will also have other modalities of SafeEntry check-in until distribution is completed.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you very much, Speaker. The hon Member, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about what would happen in the event that the tokens have their batteries dead, for example. I would like to ask, what about if the tokens are stolen? Is there a clear reporting process because ultimately this is tied to the individuals; I see number and I just like to understand what is the process for residents in the event that their tokens are stolen.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I thank Ms Nadia for the question. Simply, there is a hotline and a helpline for the TraceTogether programme as a whole, there is an email address, there is a phone number and residents can contact that to let us know.
If the TraceTogether token is stolen, nobody will have access to your NRIC. The NRIC is not stored on the token itself. The token has a unique identifier and any link to the NRIC is held securely in the service of the databases at the point of registration.
And so, the person who has taken it from you will have no access to the personal data that is inside. So, the key issue then, is to notify us and we can re-issue and re-enrol the resident into the TraceTogether programme.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I have two supplementary questions. Can MOE consider distributing the TraceTogether tokens to students in their schools before the end of the school term, so that parents do not need to queue at CCs to collect them? This is a much more efficient way of distributing the tokens to students because the token is effectively mandatory for students as they are not allowed to use their phones during the school hours. And therefore, they cannot use the TraceTogether app. However, most parents of school-going children have smartphones so they can use that the TraceTogether app and they do not need to collect the tokens.
Secondly, many people seem to be rushing to collect the tokens, even though the app performs the same function. Given that 82% of people in Singapore use smartphones, the queues at the CCS can be greatly eased, if more public education can be conducted on this. The Government also needs to address the concerns that the app drains the phone batteries because this seems to be impacting the take-up rate. So, these two measures taken together can make the token collection faster and safer for those who actually need it and it can also help us to reach the 70% of TraceTogether penetration that is needed to enter into Phase Three.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Giam for his questions. On the issue of the distribution of tokens in the schools, we will work with MOE and see what is feasible or necessary. I would point out that in the collection at the CCs, parents or family members are already collecting for their children – so that process is happening.
There are schools from my time at MOE that do allow smartphones to be carried by the children in the schools as long as they use them responsibly. So, I think there is no one-size-fits-all. We may have to look at the best possible options. I think our focus at the moment is making sure that we have an equitable distribution plan across Singapore, to address the concerns such as articulated by Mr Lim, that we have to do so in order to then allow the implementation of these TraceTogether-only SafeEntry areas to deal with high risk activities as part of that progress.
I agree with him that further public education is needed and so we have to make sure that we reduce misinformation or disinformation about what the TraceTogether app is and does and what the programme is for. Indeed, there have been issues with battery drainage, partly because we are unable to standardise the smartphone or the operating system of the user, so we will have to engineer this process for a wide variety of phones that are out there. So, the team is continually iterating and improving the app and as a result, we have seen a significant improvement in performance since the app was first launched some time ago. For those residents who have had some difficulty, please keep your app updated to the latest version and hopefully you will see an improvement in battery performance.
But public education is key and we encourage Mr Giam and Members of this House to join us in explaining to Singaporeans the benefits of joining the TraceTogether programme.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Neighbour Dispute Complaints Received by HDB Given Work-from-home Arrangements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, what is the annual number of neighbour-dispute cases received by HDB; and (b) whether there has been an increase in such dispute cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic and telecommuting work arrangements.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not track the number of disputes between neighbours in HDB flats.
From 2015 to 2019, HDB received an average of about 3,400 reports or feedback on social disamenities per year.
In 2020, about 600 cases of such feedback were received per month from January to March 2020. This increased to about 2,100 cases of feedback per month from April to July 2020 as more people worked or studied from home due to the circuit breaker measures.
From August 2020 onwards, likely due to the return of children to school and more employees to workplaces, the number of feedback per month has fallen to about 1,500.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. From the information that Senior Minister of State has just shared, I think it is obvious that the prolonged telecommuting work arrangements have resulted in increased tensions among neighbours. Those who are used to leaving home to go to the workplace during most part of the day are unfamiliar and unaccustomed to the usual activities and noise generated during the day in our HDB estates. There is therefore a need, to look at fostering better relationships among neighbours today, more so than before.
First, I would like to ask if HDB is considering any plans or programmes to help ease tensions and foster better understanding among neighbours. Second, I would like to ask what is the percentage of neighbour dispute cases received by the HDB that had to be escalated to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal or CDRT. How many of such cases managed to get resolved when escalated to the CDRT and what are the residents' options if the dispute is not able to be resolved at the tribunal?
\t
\tMs Sim Ann: I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his supplementary questions. I should reiterate that the figures that I have cited relate to the cases or feedback with regard to social disamenities. So, it is not specifically neighbour disputes. But it is the closest proxy we have. So, yes, it is a reasonable inference that the changes in the way in which we live and work would have a link to the number of such feedback or such cases.
In terms of the programmes that HDB has in place, HDB does not do it alone because anything that has to do with neighbour disputes involves people and it is also to do with expectations that neighbours have of each other. So, it is something that HDB would work on together with partners. To give an example, HDB has been working with the Singapore Kindness Movement on a \"Then How?\" series of advisories to HDB residents on how we can all adapt to the new normal with more people working from home or studying at home.
At the same time, HDB has also been doing more to advise households that are undertaking renovations to be more considerate. More advice has been given to flat owners and their contractors, for instance, that they should keep their neighbours informed whenever noisy works are being planned, so that their neighbours can make alternative plans if needed. For those residents who are not able to make alternative arrangements to circumvent this renovation period, HDB will also recommend alternative spaces where these residents can work, such as work spaces at nearby CCs.
Mr Melvin Yong also asked about the percentage of cases that progress to mediation and CDRT. For the reasons that I have mentioned, I have to highlight that it is not an exact tracking of neighbour dispute cases. My understanding is that we are not able to share what are the cases at CDRT that relate specifically to neighbour disputes. But we understand from the State Courts that from 2015 to 2019, there were 380 applications to the CDRT and, of these applications, about two-thirds were resolved amicably.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. Could I just ask the Senior Minister of State, out of the feedback that were received, what percentage was actually related to second-hand smoke in people's home? Secondly, could HDB help in mediating some of these cases between neighbours when it comes to second-hand smoke and not just pass it on to NEA?
\tMs Sim Ann: I thank Mr Louis Ng for his supplementary question. What I can share is that in terms of the feedback that has been received over 2017 to 2019, we have seen an increase in the number of complaints to do with smoking. We are not able to break it down into whether it occurred in the common areas or in other places. But in terms of the feedback, we had 216 instances of feedback about smoking in HDB areas in 2017, about 370 cases in 2018 and about 710 cases in 2019. For the first nine months of 2020, from January to September we had about 1,290 such instances.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that information. Can I request the Senior Minister of State to share what are the issues that come under the social disamenity criteria that was just mentioned because she did say that she does not have specific numbers of neighbourhood disputes, but that they generally come under this category of social disamenity? So, what are the other issues under this category that HDB tracks? And if the Senior Minister of State does not have an answer to that, what would be some of those instances which qualify as a social disamenity?
My second supplementary question is, in view of the fact that neighbour disputes do come up every now and then in the public housing setting, would HDB actually track this issue going forward so that we can understand what mechanisms can be introduced, such as the CDRT or amendments to the CDRT format, to lower this prospect of disputes and also to measure the success of measures like the cooperation with the Kindness Movement, for example, the \"Then How?\" series that the Senior Minister of State also spoke about?
\tMs Sim Ann: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. In terms of what categories are under social disamenities that would include issues apart from cigarette smoke which Mr Louis Ng mentioned, they would include issues to do with noise, foul smells, for instance. And the reason why they are a bit different than neighbourly disputes is that sometimes complaints are raised but the complainant may not be able to identify which unit originated these issues and, therefore, it would not quite be a case where we can identify specific neighbours and it may not be then a neighbour dispute case per se. That is the difference between social disamenities and neighbour disputes. Going forward, we do have intention to track neighbour disputes more closely because we do recognise that we now have developed an ecology of different methods in which to promote harmonious living and to also strengthen our community norms. This would include not just what our HDB branches can do on the ground but also in consultation and partnership with our grassroots volunteers with other organisations, like the Kindness Movement and also in concert with resolution mechanisms, such as CMC and CDRT.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline on Review of Community Dispute Management Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth when will a timeline on the review of the Community Dispute Management Framework be made available.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): MCCY leads an inter-agency committee that regularly reviews the Community Dispute Management Framework or CDMF that Mr Yip has referred to, to update and improve measures, such as the referral protocol amongst frontline agencies, mediation and, of course, also legislative recourse.
Our guiding principles continue to be to strengthen neighbourliness to minimise disputes upstream as far as possible; encourage mediation between neighbours to mend relations as far as possible; and, finally, as a measure of last resort, legal recourse for cases which may be intransigent.
Mr Yip and other Members are welcome to share their views and feedback with us and the inter-agency committee on how this framework can be strengthened.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. It was reported in the media in April that the CDMF will be reviewed, given the media report of Mr Daniel See, whose neighbour has been harassing him for many, many years and the neighbour has breached three Court orders. If the Ministry cannot share the timelines for the review, can the Minister share some of the efforts of how to make the framework more effective in solving some of these issues?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: It is not that there is no timeframe that is available. As I have said, this framework is regularly reviewed. And in fact, these are steps that can be taken outside of legislative changes. They can be improved operationally. And, occasionally, when we receive feedback on how this can be done better, we try it out and, if it can be enhanced, then it is instituted immediately.
Some examples of what has been done in recent times, as I have mentioned at the outset, we try as far as possible to bring the process upstream. So, the Community Mediation Centre, or CMC, has been working with frontline officers. And that includes officers from the Singapore Police Force, HDB, Town Councils, NEA, BCA and MSO as well. The CMC works to equip these officers with mediation skills so that they, who encounter the neighbours and the disagreements first-hand, will be able to have some skills to try to resolve that as a measure of first resort.
More than 1,500 Grassroots Leaders have been trained in the past five years on basic mediation as well. Again, on the premise that these are persons who are on the ground, they deal with neighbours, they interact with neighbours on a daily basis and they will be the first responders to any issue that might arise.
We have also enhanced the referral protocols in the context of when a case can be escalated to CMC so that CMC, with its expertise, can intervene upfront and earlier. I keep mentioning intervening upstream and earlier because, very often, the earlier an intervention is made between the parties, the more likely it is that it will result in a successful mediation.
So, these are some steps that we take, together with CMC. I would add also – I forgot to mention this earlier – that CMC also, on occasions, visits residents who fail to respond to a mediation invitation. Members will know that mediation is voluntary. So, you sometimes invite two disagreeable neighbours to a mediation but one side does not want to respond. On occasions when CMC asseses that this case is suitable for mediation and one side has failed to respond, CMC officers and mediators also visit the resident concerned to try to persuade that person to come for mediation.
So, these are the various steps. Some of these steps have been enhanced and taken on board because of feedback given by our grassroots leaders, Members in this House, and we will continue to do so.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, some of the feedback that I have received is that they do not want to travel all the way to CMC for the mediation. So, I am just wondering whether we can consider doing the mediation maybe at the CC or the RC so that it is nearer to where the complainant and the neighbour is. That way, it might increase the amount of participation in terms of mediation.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Ng. I thought you were going to ask me about second-hand smoke.
\tMr Speaker: I thought so, too!
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: But, yes, indeed. I have mentioned earlier that 1,500 grassroots leaders have been trained as mediators. We will grow that pool. The idea really is to decentralise the venue of mediation as far as possible and find a location that is suitable for both parties. We will continue to work on that. If Mr Louis Ng has got any other suggestions on how other facilities within the neighbourhood can be used, we will welcome that as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Emotional and Mental Health Wellness at Workplaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower what measures the Ministry has taken in ensuring emotional and mental health wellness in workplaces.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, MOM has been working closely with the social and health agencies, tripartite partners and other stakeholders to provide greater support for mental wellness at the workplace.
We released an advisory on supporting mental well-being of workers under COVID-19 work arrangements in April this year. We will be releasing a Tripartite Advisory on Workers’ Mental Well-being later this year. The Tripartite Advisory will provide practical guidance to employers on good workplace practices to promote workers’ mental well-being.
\tThere are existing programmes and resources that employers can tap on to help them implement mental wellness programmes at the workplace. For instance, HPB provides Management Training workshops to equip managers and HR professionals with knowledge and skills to be supportive leaders at the workplace. Companies can also tap on HPB's Workplace Outreach Wellness or WOW Package to co-fund and implement health promotion programmes, such as mental wellness workshops for their staff. To date, about 37,000 working adults have benefited from HPB's mental wellness programmes. There is also the iWorkHealth online self-assessment tool developed by MOM, IMH, HPB, Workplace Safety and Health Council and CGH to help companies identify common workplace stressors. The tool is currently piloted by a group of companies and will be fully rolled out next year, that is, 2021.
There are also many community resources in place to support individual workers who need emotional and psychological help. Various agencies, such as NCSS, the Agency for Integrated Care or AIC, and MSF work with social service agencies to provide services, such as counselling and mental health resources. For example, NCSS funds the Singapore Anglican Community Services to provide training and advisory support to employers and co-workers in creating an inclusive and supportive work environment.
NCSS also organises a multi-year public education campaign called Beyond the Label to address stigma faced by persons living with mental health conditions in Singapore. This year's campaign encourages working adults who are affected by mental health distress to seek mental health support early.
We are also encouraged to note that companies have stepped forward to take action in promoting workplace mental health. For instance, the WorkWell Leaders network organises regular meetings among corporate leaders to discuss ways to improve workplace mental health. NCSS also has a Peer Support Specialist Programme that trains individuals who have recovered from mental health issues as Peer Support Specialists to support others in their recovery.
MOM will continue to work with our partners to educate and gain the support of employers to further promote workers' mental well-being at the workplace.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I am certainly heartened by the measures and programmes that are available for mental health at the workplaces. So, my question will be, will these progammes and measures be made mandatory across all workplaces. And my second is, if these programmes are in place, will MOM conduct regular studies on the efficacy of the programmes so that we can better understand and use these programmes to help our workers?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his questions. I think it relates to two parts. First, whether these programmes will be made mandatory. We are promoting and taking a very promotional approach to mental health awareness amongst employers. We are taking good steps, especially with the new advisory that we are putting out later this year to help employers understand some of the best practices out there, to put out guidelines that are agreeable between both the employers as well as the unions and the workers or the tripartite movement, putting together some of these learnings that we have had over the past few years and what works within a workplace.
On whether to make it mandatory, I think the challenge would be that every workplace is different. There are different work stressors at different workplaces too. And that is one of the reasons why we are rolling out the iWorkHealth pilot which is an assessment tool that MOM has developed with various partners to help companies understand the work stressors, for example, so that they can better understand how they can help workers cope with mental health issues and what are some of these stress points that cause mental issues at work.
But overall, if you look at the framework today, the Workplace Safety and Health Act already requires employers to take reasonably practical measures to uphold employees' health, including their mental health. Under the Act alone, there are certain obligation when employers will take care of their workers. And therefore, to some extent, there is safeguards in place to ensure that employers take this quite seriously.
On the Member's second point, whether we will measure this, certainly, every programme has got its objectives, targets, goals and KPIs and the various agencies, I am sure, will track the efficacy of each individual programme. But for us to track every single mental health issue at the workplace, this would be quite challenging, for example, trying to track MCs, how do you do that for individual workplaces? The second challenge would be this: when you deal with mental health, the root cause may not necessarily be from the workplace too. You do need to ascertain that the root causes are at work and whether we can deal with it better at work, for example.
But there are also cases, for example, where the root causes may be stressors at work and carried into work. This is where some of the recommendations from the upcoming guidelines could help such as providing counselling, access to counsellors, or additional measures where companies can make counselling accessible to employees or make the workplace less stressful or adapting to their challenges.
These are some of the measures that we can take at the workplace. This is an evolving area in which I think many of us, whether it is Government, whether it is the employers, are closely monitoring, given the fact that we do have to better understand the workplace stressors that our employees face, and especially today, under COVID-19 conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Walk-in Consultations at Polyclinics for Mental Health Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to include mental health services in the polyclinics to be open to walk-ins, rather than through referrals or on an appointment basis, to reduce treatment delay of mental healthcare in the community.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, strengthening mental health services in primary care has been one of the key focus areas under the Community Mental Health Masterplan. This is to ensure that persons with mental health conditions can access care closer to home and in a less stigmatising environment.
Over the years, we have worked with the polyclinic clusters to set up mental health services in polyclinics and gradually build up the capabilities of our primary care doctors to manage persons with mild to moderate mental health conditions. Persons with mental health concerns can walk in to polyclinics and they will be attended to by polyclinics doctors who will conduct preliminary assessment and provide appropriate management, including making a referral to the mental health services, where necessary.
Other than seeking help at the polyclinic, persons with mental health conditions can also seek care for mental health at nearby General Practitioner or GP clinics. Under the Mental Health General Practitioner Partnership Programme or MHGPP, we have trained over 220 GPs to identify, diagnose and manage persons with mental health issues in the community. These GPs are further supported by community intervention teams which provide allied-health services, such as needs assessment, psycho-social therapeutic intervention, counselling and psycho-education for persons with mental health conditions. Community Health Assist Scheme or CHAS subsidies are available for persons seeking mental healthcare with our MHGPP partners, who are also CHAS GP clinics.
In addition, persons with mental health conditions can also tap on other avenues of support available in the community, such as the community outreach teams, which provide basic emotional and psycho-social support and service linkage for persons with mental health issues. To date, we have a network of 43 community outreach teams across Singapore.
MOH will continue to work with polyclinics, GPs and community mental health partners to build up our mental health services in the community, so that holistic and timely support is provided for persons with mental health conditions.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. With regards to the GP clinics that are already participating, there are really a lot more that are not. Is there a reason why some of these GP clinics are not keen to participate in such a partnership programme? Would the Ministry consider handing out incentives to encourage participation or even make such programmes mandatory for all GP clinics?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I think we have to take the view that GPs and their clinics have to do the broad base of primary care in terms of access. And then, when it comes to certain domains, people have to leverage on the strengths and skills sets that are available in that team. And so, we have GPs that go on to take special trainings so that they can provide mental healthcare services. Some will focus on dermatology; some will focus on children care services or maternal care services.
I think the key issue is to ensure that there is access for anybody who needs care for mental health condition. And they have a choice, in terms of going to the polyclinic or going to a private GP and that they then have a network of support services from the community care teams, the allied healthcare teams and the referral services in the hospitals, and that these can be accessed either by the polyclinic route or by the private GP. That is the intent to which we work towards.
I think to insist that this be compulsory across every single clinic perhaps is not in the right spirit of how care should be delivered. You make sure that the broad base of access is there and for certain specialised domains, you improve understanding, you improve access and the teams should then make referral to GPs, polyclinics and centres where they have the full suite of services to be able to care for people with these conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of 2019 Decriminalisation of Suicide on Number of Reported Cases and on Persons Tempted to Commit Suicide","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs since the decriminalisation of suicide in 2019 (a) how many cases of suicide have been recorded; (b) in how many cases of attempted suicide have the Police and SCDF intervened to help such persons as part of the safeguards put in place upon the abolishment of the criminal offence of attempting suicide; and (c) how has the decriminalisation of attempted suicide improved the situation for persons tempted to commit suicide.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, in 2019, there were 400 cases of death by suicide. From January to September 2019, there were 304 deaths by suicide.
Preliminarily, from January to September 2020, this year, there were 166 cases of death by suicide. I have to qualify that these are preliminary figures. They may change depending on the outcomes from proceedings such as the Coroner's inquiries to determine the circumstances leading to death.
Attempted suicide was decriminalised via the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019. The amendments came into effect on 1 January 2020. From January to September this year, Police were called to assist in about 1,800 cases involving persons with suicidal ideation or persons who may have attempted suicide.
Before attempted suicide was decriminalised, from 2017 to 2019, Police received about 1,200 reports of attempted suicide per year. For these cases of attempted suicide, the physical and fault elements of the offences under section 309 of the Penal Code must be made out. That means they have to demonstrate intent as well as actually carry out an act to take his own life. This figure is not comparable with the post-decriminalisation figure which covers cases where individuals have suicidal ideation, in addition to persons who have actually taken the further step of attempting suicide.
The criminal justice system is not the best way to deal with persons who attempted suicide. Such persons are often under severe distress. The decriminalisation of attempted suicide reduces stigma and encourages persons who are suicidal to seek help early. The reasons for suicide are multi-faceted and complex. Hence, the Government has been continuing our efforts to prevent suicides.
We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust our approaches to better assist suicidal persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Better Waste Management in View of Carrying Capacity of Singapore's Green and Blue Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to look into the carrying capacity of our green and blue spaces and how trash can be better managed on our Southern Islands given that more Singaporeans have been visiting these nature parks.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, NParks actively manages the capacity of our parks and nature reserves. For example, NParks carries out real time crowd monitoring and control, and has closed park areas temporarily when needed, in view of increased visitorship and safe distancing requirements during the COVID-19 period. Visitors can check the visitorship levels via NParks' Safe Distance@Parks portal to avoid potential crowds, before heading to the parks.
NParks is very mindful of the potential impact that increased visitorship may have on our biodiversity. In this regard, NParks deploys officers to remind visitors not to venture off the designated trails. In addition, there are signs around our nature areas and parks to educate visitors on park etiquette and regulations.
NParks will continue to expand the network of parks, including nature parks, so that more Singaporeans can enjoy nature-based recreation. This will help spread out the demand for such recreational experiences, and alleviate the pressure on core biodiversity areas, including our nature reserves.
To manage the trash generated by visitors at our Southern Islands specifically, SLA has installed trash bins and signs to encourage visitors to bring their trash with them when they leave. Besides clearing the flotsam and litter daily, SLA and NParks also work together with the community on initiatives such as beach clean-ups at the islands.
We would like to remind all park users to be socially responsible, and help keep our parks and natural spaces clean so that we can all continue to enjoy these public spaces together.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Leader.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 11, 13-22, 24-25, 27 and 29-35 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 12, 23, 26 and 28 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That notwithstanding the Standing Orders:
(a) the Minister for Home Affairs and Law may, in his statement on the Parti Liyani case, give Parliament a full account of the conduct of the police officers and prosecutors involved in that case, and clarifications may be sought and given on the account given by the Minister; and
(b) Members may refer to and discuss the account given by the Minister when the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim is under consideration by Parliament.”
Sir, the Parti Liyani case has generated significant public interest.
Numerous questions were filed by Members after the High Court gave its judgment, including questions in relation to the Police investigations and/or the prosecution of the case by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and what would be done to address the issues that were identified in the High Court’s judgment.
Ms Lim has also filed a motion relating to the justice system and I understand from public statements made by the Workers’ Party that this will also touch on the Parti Liyani matter.
Given the significant public interest in these issues, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law will shortly be delivering a Ministerial Statement.
The Minister intends that Members should be able to seek clarifications on his Statement.
There is also the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim. Given the topic of Ms Lim’s Motion, it is also possible that in the debate on the Motion, Members may refer to matters in the Ministerial Statement.
The speech, discussion and clarifications are likely to go into matters that may also be relevant to existing proceedings.
Standing Order 50(2) provides that “[r]eference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice”, that is to say, matters which are pending before the Courts.
In order to allow the Minister to give a full account of the matter to Parliament and so that Members will not be restricted in their ability to seek clarifications or to discuss or debate the case, which has raised issues of significant public interest, it is necessary to lift Standing Order 50(2).
It is for this reason that I am moving this Motion to lift the application of Standing Order 50(2), so that the issues may be fully ventilated in this House today.
In so doing, I wish to sound a cautionary note. The sub judice rule is one that we normally adhere to, for good reason. However, here, we will be discussing the issues because there is a clear public interest for the questions raised about our criminal justice system to be addressed sooner, rather than later. It is not clear when the existing proceedings will conclude, and it is not satisfactory to defer the Parliamentary discussion of the case for months or indefinitely.
This should not be regarded as a general precedent, but something that is necessary for the present circumstances.
I would also urge Members to exercise judgement in their speeches and clarifications, and to be prepared to substantiate any factual point they are making. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That notwithstanding the Standing Orders: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) the Minister for Home Affairs and Law may, in his statement on the Parti Liyani case, give Parliament a full account of the conduct of the police officers and prosecutors involved in that case, and clarifications may be sought and given on the account given by the Minister; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) Members may refer to and discuss the account given by the Minister when the motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim is under consideration by Parliament\". (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of the Case of Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor 2020 SGHC 187","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Home Affairs and Law","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs and Law Mr Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this.
Sir, in March 2019, Ms Parti Liyani – and I will refer to her as Ms Liyani – was convicted in the State Courts on four theft-related charges. She was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment. She appealed to the High Court against her conviction and sentence, and on 4 September 2020, she was acquitted on all the charges by the High Court.
A number of questions have been raised following her acquittal. They centre around: how did the Police and Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC handle the case? How should the State Court Judgment be assessed, given the High Court’s views?
These are important questions. There has been much attention on this case. Members have filed questions. Many news reports and commentaries on this, since September.
There has been interest because underlying these questions, which are specific to the case, there is a broader, more fundamental question:
(a) Did a powerful man, Mr Liew Mun Leong, and I will refer to him as LML, work the system to his advantage?
(b) Did the Police and AGC unfairly prosecute Ms Liyani, because LML was the complainant?
(c) Did Ms Liyani get a fair trial in the State Courts?
(d) Do we have one law for the wealthy, socially connected, and another for the rest of society?
This fundamental issue is at the heart of many of the questions that have been raised. And that question is of central importance to us. The credibility of our system, the foundation of our society depends on us ensuring that there is Rule of Law and the Law applies equally to all.
If that principle is compromised, then Singapore is compromised. It is a basic duty of the Government to ensure that that principle is upheld and I take it very seriously. And so it is good that we deal with this, with the questions that have been asked.
I will start first with the case: the investigations, the conduct of trial and the specific questions which have arisen, relating to the case – it will be Part 1 of my Statement. I will then move on to Part 2 which will deal with the fundamental questions as I have put them. And in Part 3, I will deal with the questions that Members of Parliament have raised.
May I suggest two things, Sir. It is not going to be a short speech. And at the end of Part 1, it may be appropriate to take a break and then come back for Parts 2 and 3.
Mr Speaker: Yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: At the end of Part 1, but certainly by end of Part 3, we will probably know what is happening in the US. [Laughter.]
Let me start with the facts. The facts are as follows.
Ms Liyani was an Indonesian domestic worker working in Singapore since 1997. According to her, LML was her third employer. But MOM records show that LML was in fact her seventh employer. She worked for LML from March 2007 until 28 October 2016. Her employment was terminated on that day. In Court, the following was said – and I am setting out what was said, not commenting whether it is true or false.
Over the years, the family’s possessions went missing. LML gave examples such as a bag he bought from Tokyo, his jogging shoes, a number of Longchamp bags. He suspected Ms Liyani of stealing but did not take action as he could not be sure. A specially designed power bank from France, that was gifted to LML, “disappeared” a few days after he had received it.
Subsequent investigations showed that this may have happened in May 2016. By then, the only occupants in the house were LML, his wife Ng Lai Peng – whom I will refer to as NLP – and Ms Liyani. Though some others may have had access to the house, LML then decided to terminate Ms Liyani’s employment.
In this context – and I should add and I will come back to this later – subsequent investigations also showed that earlier, in late 2015, the Liews were looking to replace Ms Liyani because they thought she was stealing things. But no firm decision was taken. In September 2016, they decided to terminate her employment and told the maid agency.
Once a replacement helper was available, they decided to let Ms Liyani go. LML was travelling, he told his wife to arrange for people to be around and serve the notice of termination.
On 28 October 2016, at about 11 am, Karl Liew – I will refer to him as Karl – LML's son, went to LML’s residence at 49 CL with employment agents and this was at LML’s request. Karl told Ms Liyani they were sending her back. No reasons were initially given. Ms Liyani asked for reasons.
Karl told her that “there are missing items in the house and the only people staying in the house were my father, my mother and you”. She was asked to pack her belongings and given two months’ salary as compensation, in addition to that month’s salary.
Ms Liyani asked for boxes to pack her things. These were provided to her. She packed them with some assistance from the Liews’ other employees. She sealed one box with tape and wrote her address on it. The other two boxes were sealed by two other employees of LML. Karl agreed to pay for the boxes to be sent back to Indonesia.
Ms Liyani left the house with the employment agent and returned to Indonesia that night. The replacement helper commenced her employment at LML’s house on the same day, 28 October 2016. When he got home, Karl told his wife Heather Lim – and I will refer to her as Heather – about what had happened. Heather told him that the boxes should not be sent back without knowing what was inside them.
On 29 October 2016, in the afternoon, NLP, Karl and Heather opened the boxes. They said they found items which belonged to them which they had not seen for years. They spent about two hours going through the items. They also took a 21-second video. LML returned to Singapore some time on 29 October 2016. He spent a short time going through the contents of the boxes.
On 30 October 2016 at 3.54 pm, LML lodged a Police report at Tanglin Police Station.
On 4 November 2016, a Police Gazette was issued. I will come back to this later and deal with the Police Gazette or PG.
On 2 December 2016 at about 9 pm, Ms Liyani returned to Singapore. She was arrested at the airport based on the PG. Ms Liyani said in her statement to the Police, that she came back to visit a friend and go sightseeing thereafter, and she planned to return to Indonesia before going to Hong Kong to work. Later in Court, she said that she, in fact, returned to Singapore to look for her agent and seek employment. When she was arrested, some items were found on her. These are listed in Annex 1, Table A to my Statement. [Please refer to Annex 1.]
The Liews said these were also stolen items. These items were seized and subsequently included in the charges against her.
I will now deal with how the investigations were conducted by the Police, how AGC assessed the case and proceeded.
LML had lodged a Police report, as I said earlier, on 30 October. The Police report stated that over the years, the family's belongings had gone missing. They suspected Ms Liyani. They terminated her employment on 28 October and they found some of the items packed in her boxes.
LML's statement was then taken. Initial investigations showed that Ms Liyani had left Singapore on 28 October itself. LML had set out in his Police statement the items which he said had been stolen. The items were, according to LML, found amongst Ms Liyani's belongings in the boxes.
Theft is an arrestable offence. The Police needed to trace Ms Liyani to investigate further. Where there is reason to suspect that an arrestable offence has been committed, the Police will try to find the alleged offender and, if appropriate, arrest the person. If the person is at a known address, the Police can go and interview the person. If there is no known address or if the person is believed to have gone overseas, then a PG will be issued. And so, a PG was issued in this case. Ms Liyani was believed to have gone overseas.
On 2 December, at about 9 pm, as I said earlier, she was arrested at the airport. On 3 December, the Police went to the Liews' houses. They first went to Karl's house. One of the three boxes had been moved there. Karl told the Police the items in the box were his. The Police were told that the box containing Karl's items had been brought back to his home.
The box contained an assortment of items – clothing, bedding, kitchen ware, utensils. Items were taken out, laid out, photographed. These photos were used in recording the various statements taken subsequently. The physical items were not seized.
The Police then visited LML's house. The Police were told that the two boxes had remained there. NLP had recovered some items from the boxes – jewellery, accessories, watches, Gucci sunglasses. The Police seized 51 items. Twenty-one items eventually formed the third charge. They were said to belong to LML's daughter, Ms May Liew, and I will refer to her as May. These items are set out in Annex 2. [Please refer to Annex 2.]
The Police did not seize all the items. They were seen as daily use items. The Liews claimed these items. Photographs were taken in lieu of seizure. Items found in those boxes are set out in Annex 1, Table B.
The Police then continued their investigations. They took statements from Ms Liyani, the Liews and other witnesses. The matter was then referred to AGC.
I will now set out how AGC proceeded in coming to the charging decision.
When AGC receives a file from a law enforcement agency, the prosecutors will assess whether a charge is appropriate and what action, if any, should be taken. The assessment and decision are usually cleared by a Director. Files are typically cleared at the Director level, not usually brought up to a higher management – by which I mean the Deputy Chief Prosecutor, the Chief Prosecutor, the Deputy Attorney-General or Attorney-General, or AG – unless they involve more serious or sensitive crimes or where AG's consent to prosecute is expressly required.
Ms Liyani's case was no different. It went through the same routine and the charging decision was cleared at the Director level. The events leading up to the charging decision were as follows.
On 5 June 2017, the Police sent the file to AGC with their investigation findings and recommendations. Such theft files are routine matters handled by AGC. Over the last three years, AGC has dealt with an average about 3,000 reports every year for theft in dwelling and theft as servant offences.
The file was reviewed by two Deputy Public Prosecutors or DPPs. They asked the Police to investigate a number of further points. The police did that and returned the file to AGC with further findings. The DPPs then reviewed the file. They sought further clarifications, and the file was then sent back to the Police for further investigations. The Police conducted further investigations. Then, they sent the file back to AGC. DPPs reviewed the evidence again.
This back and forth between the Police and AGC is again normal. In many cases, DPPs will look at the material and ask further questions. Because of the system in AGC, depending on which officer is on duty, it would be different DPPs who look at the same file and that was what happened here as well.
From the Police and AGC's perspective, this was handled as a routine theft case. There was no attempt by anyone to influence them. A Police report was filed and the matter was dealt with as such reports are usually dealt with. I will come back to this.
AGC decided to charge Ms Liyani for two main reasons: there was sufficient evidence which showed that theft offences were likely to have been committed; and second, it was in the public interest to prosecute. Let me explain this.
The evidence before AGC at that time was as follows: the Liews had identified all the items in the charges as items belonging to them and gave some detail. In contrast, based on what AGC saw, Ms Liyani gave answers which raised many questions. I will highlight some of these.
Ms Liyani claimed that she had found some jewellery in May's trash. May stated that she would never throw jewellery away. She would give unwanted jewellery to the Salvation Army or friends. AGC's assessment was that the evidence of May was more believable.
Ms Liyani also claimed that she had found items such as a Prada bag, two Apple iPhones, a pair of Gucci sunglasses in the trash. AGC did not find this to be credible. The list of items that Ms Liyani said she found in the trash are in Annex 3 and those are the photographs that have been circulated to Members. [Please refer to Annex 3.]
Ms Liyani also expressly admitted to taking some items – 10 to 15 items of clothing. Let me explain this.
In her first statement dated 3 December 2016, Ms Liyani was asked how she came into possession of male clothing. She said the clothing belonged to her employer. She said she took the clothing because the clothes were small. She assumed the employer's son Karl would not want the clothes. She did not ask Karl whether she could take the clothes. She admitted to taking the pieces of male clothing in early 2015.
In her second statement dated 4 December 2016, Ms Liyani said, \"I only took about 10 to 15 pieces of men's clothing belonging to my employer's husband. I admit that I took it without informing my employer or her husband\". And she also said, \"I only admit to taking the 10 to 15 men's clothing belonging to my employer's husband without consent\" and \"I did not steal any other items.\"
Her statement that she did not steal any other items is also very significant. Prima facie on the statements, this would appear to be theft. AGC assessed the case based on this and other material.
I should add that under cross-examination in Court, Ms Liyani said she was only given permission to take these items if Karl did not want them, but she did not ask Karl, meaning she just took the items.
Ms Liyani also gave contradictory accounts to the Police on several other items. These inconsistencies are set out in Annex 4. [Please refer to Annex 4.] I will highlight two instances of inconsistencies as illustrations.
One Vacheron Constantin watch and a Swatch watch – in her statement dated 4 December, Ms Liyani said these watches were gifts from a friend. However, in a later statement of 29 May 2017, she said she found these watches in May's trash.
A pair of Gucci sunglasses – in her statement dated 4 December 2016, she said this was a gift from LML's previous helper. In a later statement of May 2017, she said she found it in her room at LML's home when she first started working for LML.
I should add, later in Court, Ms Liyani was asked about these contradictions. She gave explanations. Her explanations are also set out in the table at Annex 4.
Putting together Ms Liyani's apparent inconsistencies, her answers on the jewellery and the other items, which she said she found in the trash – like the Prada bag, the two Apple iPhones, a pair of Gucci sunglasses – her other questionable answers, her admission to taking some male clothing without permission, AGC's view was that there was a case to prosecute.
At that stage, the Liews' position was that the items were theirs. AGC also took the view that there was a clear public interest in prosecuting Ms Liyani. Two reasons: one, it appeared that Ms Liyani had stolen many items, including some seemingly expensive items; and two, it appeared that she had been stealing for years and it was not an impulsive spur-of-the-moment decision.
So, the questions for Members in this House, in this case, is, on what I have set out – what material evidence did Police and AGC have? What does that show? Was there a basis for AGC's view that the case ought to be prosecuted? That is why I have set out this material in some detail, so that Members can assess for themselves the basis for the decisions that the Police and AGC came to.
I will now move on to the trial.
The trial was heard in the State Courts over 20 days, from 23 April 2018 to 17 January 2019. The DPPs who conducted the trial were different from the DPPs who had previously been involved in the charging process. Ms Liyani was represented by counsel assigned under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, or CLAS, for both the trial and the appeal. I will come back later to CLAS.
Let me now turn to the State Court's judgment. The trial judge found serious inconsistencies in Ms Liyani's evidence between what she said in Court and her previous statements. The State Court noted that Ms Liyani had various versions in relation to specific items. Ms Liyani said different things in her statement compared with what she said in evidence in chief in Court and then sometimes, changed her version under cross-examination. I have earlier referred to Annex 4, which sets out these inconsistencies and also her explanations for these inconsistencies.
The State Court found Ms Liyani's evidence on some items to be implausible. For example, the two old white iPhones – she said she picked up the two phones from a rubbish bag. These were iPhone 4 models, probably about six years old as of 2016. The State Court preferred the Liews' evidence that they would not discard old mobile phones as they were used as spare phones or as hard drives to keep photographs.
Jewellery – Ms Liyani said that most of the jewellery was picked from May's rubbish in 2011 or 2012 and she did not seek permission to take them. May identified the items as hers and provided circumstances of how and why she purchased them. The State Court preferred May's version as it was more detailed and she came across as honest and forthright.
Ms Liyani said that a purple Prada bag and Gucci sunglasses with red stains were found in a rubbish bag. The State Court accepted Heather's evidence that these items were never discarded. The trial judge said the modus operandi of Ms Liyani was to take a variety of items from different family members, thinking that this would go unnoticed.
On appeal, the High Court acquitted Ms Liyani on all charges. The High Court's decision was premised on two key findings.
First, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews had an improper motive for making allegations against Ms Liyani. Second, there had been a break in the chain of custody of the items, which were said to have been stolen. In addition, the High Court also expressed doubts about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, in particular, Karl. It also expressed doubts on the extent to which Ms Liyani's statements given to the Police should be used against her. I will deal with all four points.
I should say this – as a rule, we do not comment in detail on Court decisions. Sometimes, we deal with specific issues that can arise from decisions or comments; and when decisions raised broader questions, then, this House has discussed the relevant judgments, like the City Harvest case. In this case, the High Court's comments have given rise to the questions I have referred to earlier. These questions require us to go back and carefully analyse the judgment.
It is difficult to discuss the law enforcement and legal processes, here in Parliament, based on the High Court's comments without a proper understanding of the comments. We also cannot make an assessment of whether the comments require us to change any of our current processes without looking carefully at the relevant parts of the judgment.
So, I will therefore be looking at parts of the High Court judgment to give the Government's views on them, and based on that, I will set up what gaps there were in the investigations, conduct of the trial and also say what more could or should have been done.
But as we do this, let me make three points clear and reiterate what I have said earlier.
First, the High Court's decision is final, on the acquittal; there is no appeal.
Second, I am making no comment as to whether the High Court's decision can be relied upon, or whether the Judge’s comments can be relooked at in other proceedings, for example, in any proceedings that Ms Liyani or others are or may be involved. There are Rules of Evidence relating to these matters.
Third, in this case, we have had to deal with the questions raised, whether there were or are any systemic issues with our law enforcement processes, and for that purpose, we have to discuss the Judgment, the Government’s view and also look at some additional factual material, which we came to know of after the Judgment was delivered. It is, therefore, a narrow, specific purpose. This exercise is not one of reopening the Judgment, and I should emphasise that. We are going into detail only because it is necessary for the purposes I have explained.
So, let us start with, first, the motive point. The Judge said at paragraph 52 of the Judgment, and I quote, \"the Police report was made just two days after Parti made explicit to two members of Liew’s family of her intention to lodge a complaint to the MOM about being required to work illegally at Karl’s residence at 39 CL and at Karl’s office\"
There are two points here. First, did Ms Liyani steal? And second, what was the Liews’ motive in making the allegations?
If it is shown that there is a reasonable doubt that the Liews had an improper motive, then what they say about Ms Liyani and the theft of items could become questionable. In this case, the High Court came to a view on motive that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews filed the Police Report, to prevent Ms Liyani from filing a MOM complaint against them for having deployed her to work outside their house.
Motive appears to have been a key factor in the Judgment and we have looked carefully at what the High Court said at paragraph 52 of the Judgment, that Ms Liyani had made explicit to two members of LML’s family her intention to lodge a complaint to MOM about being required to work illegally at Karl’s residence at 39 CL and at Karl’s office.
The evidence is that as Ms Liyani was packing her things on 28 October 2016, she said she was going to complain to MOM. She did not say what she was going to complain to MOM about. The High Court did note this and said that Ms Liyani did not actually say that she was going to complain about having been made to work at Karl’s house or office. Thus, when the High Court said Ms Liyani had made explicit to two members of the Liew family she was going to complain about having been made to work outside LML’s house, the statement was an inference that the High Court has made based on the evidence and submissions before it.
Based on this, the High Court also said LML and Karl must have been concerned and, therefore, there is reasonable doubt as to whether they had a motive to make allegations and a police report against Ms Liyani. The Court, in fact, said this threat by Ms Liyani on 28 October 2016 to lodge a complaint with MOM was, I quote, \"most critical\".
Second, the Court then said the Liews filed the \"urgent\" Police report on 30 October 2016 to ensure that Ms Liyani’s return would be prevented, and so that Ms Liyani cannot file a complaint to MOM.
Third, the Court said that the termination of her employment was sudden, so that Ms Liyani would not have time to complain to MOM.
I will deal with all these three observations that the Court made because it is these observations on the Liews’ motive which have primarily led to questions in this case on whether there was any improper influence by LML on the agencies, which is the question centrally before us.
When Ms Liyani said on 28 October 2016 that she was going to complain to MOM, what was she referring to? Annex 5 sets out what Ms Liyani seems to have said and this is based on subsequent investigations. [Please refer to Annex 5.] The subsequent evidence is that she said, and I quote, \"I want to complain because you gave me too short notice\". She thus seemed to have actually said more than what was in evidence in Court. Annex 5 also sets out why this part of what she said was not in evidence in the State Courts and I will come back to this later.
How and why was this subsequent evidence obtained? After the High Court's decision was issued, there were internal reviews, as announced. AGC also directed the Police to conduct further investigations into whether any offences had been committed by the Liews. This information that I have set out, and other information, was obtained in the course of those investigations, which arose from the High Court's decision. So, I emphasise that, as a result of the High Court's comments, further investigations were conducted against the Liews. It was in the course of those investigations that this information came out.
As stated earlier, the evidence is that LML had been thinking of terminating Ms Liyani’s employment for some time, prior to October 2016, because he suspected Ms Liyani of stealing. He told NLP of this. The further investigations, conducted after the High Court's decision, show that NLP told the maid agency by end of 2015 that she wanted to get a new helper. She told the maid agency that she suspected Ms Liyani of stealing. She went to the agency a few times to review bio-data of possible replacement helpers, but NLP did not make a firm decision.
Sometime after LML received the power bank in May 2016, it disappeared. LML then decided to terminate Ms Liyani’s employment and told NLP. NLP visited the agency in September 2016 and chose a replacement helper. Ms Liyani was dismissed on 28 October 2016 because a new helper had become available on that day.
According to LML, he had agreed with NLP that Ms Liyani would only be dismissed once a replacement was found. Based on what the maid agent has said to the Police, the new helper arrived in Singapore on 25 October 2016. On 26 October 2016, after checking with the maid agent on the status of the new helper, the family decided that Ms Liyani would be dismissed on 28 October 2016.
On 28 October 2016, after Ms Liyani was told that her employment was terminated, Ms Liyani said \"I want to complain because you gave me too short notice\". One of the maid agents who was present then, confirms this. He says, after Ms Liyani was told that her employment was terminated, Ms Liyani \"shouted that she wanted to complain to MOM about the short notice of termination\". Ms Liyani did not say that she wanted to complain to MOM about anything else.
As can be seen, this is quite different from the inference that the High Court had made. But the High Court understandably and naturally went on the basis of the evidence and the submissions made to it. The High Court did not have the benefit of this additional evidence. And as I have said, our purpose is not to reopen the High Court’s findings.
Further investigations also revealed that on 28 October 2016, the maid agents offered twice to assist Ms Liyani with lodging an MOM complaint but Ms Liyani declined. First time was at 49 CL when Ms Liyani first said that she wanted to complain. And the second time was at the agent’s office before they left for the airport. Ms Liyani declined on both occasions.
Ms Liyani lodged her complaint about illegal deployment after she was charged in September and October 2017. As can be seen from Annex 5, the Prosecution did not obtain or put forward this evidence because the issue had not been raised by the Defence in its Case for Defence or at the pre-trial conference. These points were thus not inquired into.
Prosecution, in general, puts forward the evidence it needs for the charges and to deal with the points that the Defence says it is going to make or raise. When a new point gets raised during the trial, Prosecution will have to assess how to proceed. In this case, the matter was raised when witnesses were on the stand and in Submissions. The Prosecution did not see a need to deal with the issue by bringing in new evidence for the reasons set out in Annex 5. Annex 5 is a Note prepared by AGC. I asked them to give me a Note, setting out how this point on Motive was handled in Court and the position that AGC took.
I want to emphasise a few points. How a trial is handled, what evidence is led, is a matter for the lawyers involved to decide. I have myself been in such situations. When the other side raises a new point, do you deal with it by going back and checking if there is further evidence or do you treat it as irrelevant, or do you deal with it in Submissions? It really depends on the situation and the facts, the Counsel’s assessment.
So, we are not here discussing the specifics of how the trial was conducted, and whether how it was conducted was right or wrong. My task before this House is to set out what happened, what we have found out since the High Court's Judgment and, based on that, examine whether there are any systemic issues, and whether there was any influence-peddling.
I also emphasise Members must take this further evidence in its proper context. It is evidence untested in Court. But since this has come up during the further investigations as to whether the Liews committed an offence, I am duty bound to set this out in this House because it is in my possession. So, I cannot come here and go through the facts without telling you that we have this further information which only came about because the further investigations into the Liews’ conduct was directed by AGC.
I will now deal with the second point that the High Court made, that the Liews filed the Police report to try and prevent Ms Liyani from making an MOM complaint.
Making a Police Report will not prevent Ms Liyani from returning to Singapore. The High Court made the same point to Defence counsel during the hearing. Indeed, in this case, it did not stop her from returning to Singapore.
And making a Police Report will also not prevent Ms Liyani from filing a complaint with MOM if she was serious about doing so. She does not even have to be in Singapore to do that.
If an MOM complaint was a key concern, filing a Police Report and having Police investigations is possibly a sure way for such a complaint to be raised. Should Ms Liyani attempt to return, Police investigations would also require her to remain in Singapore, once again offering her a further opportunity to pursue an MOM complaint against the Liews.
The High Court has also said that LML’s reasons for filing the Police report were \"curious\". LML had stated that he was lodging the Police report \"for record purposes as he was afraid that her boyfriends might cause a nuisance or break into [his] apartment\".
Looking at it in this House, Ms Liyani had left and had asked for three boxes to be sent to her. The Liews had opened the boxes and were not going to send them to her. They said they found items belonging to them in the boxes. They also said that they were concerned that Ms Liyani's boyfriends in Singapore might try to retrieve the items.
In the circumstances, is it understandable that a Police Report is filed? Is it possible to think that Ms Liyani or persons acting on her behalf will ask what happened to the items and may accuse the Liews?
I put forward these points on filing the Police Report because for our purposes, in this context, the question is not whether the High Court is right or wrong but, rather, the question is how did the AGC and Police proceed? Is there anything so obviously wrong about the filing of the Police Report that should have been apparent to the Police and the AGC?
On the material before them, did the Police and AGC have good reason to proceed on the basis that this was a routine theft case? That is the central question; not whether the High Court was right, wrong; State Court, who says what. Did AGC and Police proceed in good faith, based on the material before them and what was before them?
So, I am putting these points across, so that Members can place themselves in the shoes of Police and AGC and think of these points. And it is for the same reason that I will go through some of the other points which I will come to, but I may not keep repeating these points about why I am going into detail. But as long as Members understand the purpose of much of what I have said, and will say, the detail that I am setting out is broadly to help understand what was the basis on which Police and AGC proceeded in this case – did they have good reason to proceed, what did they know before the trial – and we are looking at that to see whether, systemically, anything was wrong.
The third point that the High Court made relates to the termination of Ms Liyani's employment. The High Court said the termination of Ms Liyani's employment was sudden, since there was no evidence of items that had gone missing in the period around 28 October 2016 which necessitated the \"immediate and sudden termination\" of Ms Liyani's employment when LML was overseas. Thus, the High Court said this sudden termination was less likely to be because of items that went missing \"over the years\" and more likely to be due to fear of Ms Liyani's complaint to MOM.
I have set out the way this point came up and how this point had been dealt with in evidence at the trial and what subsequent investigations showed.
The investigations showed that the decision to terminate Ms Liyani's employment was not sudden. It was being considered from late 2015. The Liews decided upon a replacement helper in September 2016 for the reasons set out earlier. Ms Liyani's employment was terminated on 28 October 2016 because the replacement helper became available then. The Police did not go into this earlier. There was no reason for the Police to believe that the termination was for reasons other than the alleged theft.
I will now deal with a couple more points on the motive issue.
The High Court used different terminologies to describe the Liews' motive. It said \"reason to believe\", \"reasonable doubt\", \"an improper motive\", \"the improper motive\", it referred to \"the existence of an improper motive\". So, it is not clear, was there only a reasonable doubt that the Liews had an improper motive, or is the Court saying the Liews actually, in fact, had an improper motive. It cannot be both. Lawyers will know that.
I think it will be a fair assumption that the High Court intended to say that there was a reasonable doubt and not that in fact, it found, that there was an improper motive. It means that the High Court says there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews had an improper motive, and not that they in fact had an improper motive.
The High Court also rejected the allegation that the whole of the Liew family were acting in collusion, based on the improper motive.
This view on motive appears to have considerably influenced the High Court in assessing the witnesses' credibility as well. The High Court said this at various points in the judgment. So, that is the first reason why Ms Liyani was acquitted.
I will now come to the second major reason for the High Court acquitting Ms Liyani.
The High Court said that there was a break in the chain of custody of the items which were alleged to have been stolen by Ms Liyani. The items which were recovered from the boxes, are set out in Annex 1, Table B. The items which were recovered from Ms Liyani, upon her arrest, are set out in Annex 1, Table A. The break in the chain of custody applies to the items recovered from the boxes, and not the items seized from Ms Liyani.
When you refer to the items in the boxes – I have set out the facts earlier – the High Court found that there had been a break in the chain of the items from 29 October 2016 when they were found in the boxes by the Liews, to 3 December 2016 when the Police visited the scene. The Liews were also using the items in the boxes during this period. The High Court therefore said the case of theft is not proven because it cannot be proven that Ms Liyani took them. There could have been interference when the boxes were with the Liews.
These items can be classified into two categories: one, items which Ms Liyani admitted to packing in the boxes, or otherwise admitted to taking; and two, items which she did not specifically admit to packing into her boxes. Where Ms Liyani admitted to packing the items, or taking the items, then it really does not matter whether there was a chain of custody, or whether that chain of custody was broken, because she clearly intended to take these items. Where she admits to packing the items, or taking the items, then the only question is whether it belongs to the Liews or to Ms Liyani, or for some reason, she is entitled to keep the items.
We have identified the items which Ms Liyani does not admit to packing into her boxes, namely the two DVD players, some of the clothing said to belong to Karl, three bedsheets and one blanket said to belong to Karl. Looking at the facts, the High Court's view that there was a break in the chain of custody is understandable in respect of these items.
A fourth charge relates to items in Heather’s possession, comprised solely of items seized from Ms Liyani, including a Prada bag and a pair of Gucci sunglasses with red stains, when she came back from Jakarta. The break in chain of custody does not apply to these items. I have gone through the break in chain of custody in some detail because this was the second major reason the Judge gave. But more importantly, because it relates directly to what the Police did, or did not do.
For Members' understanding, it is useful to know which items are affected by the break in the chain, which items are not so affected, and that several items are not affected by the break in the chain. This is because there has been a misunderstanding amongst some, that all the items are affected by the break in the chain of custody.
We have set out at Annex 6 how the issue of chain of custody affected the various items in the charges. [Please refer to Annex 6.]
If we remove those items possibly affected by the break in chain of custody, there would still be four theft charges against Ms Liyani. As regards the items that were affected by the break in the chain, there is no question – the Police should have acted faster. The Police admitted that there was a lapse in this area of investigation and I will come back to this later.
Third, the Liews' credibility. The High Court spoke about this. The High Court had doubts about the Liews' credibility, in particular, it highlighted Karl's evidence. It noted the following points about Karl's evidence.
One, Karl did not clearly identify some pieces of clothing in the second charge, such as a black dress as having been in his possession.
Karl also had difficulties with some of the other items of clothing, like a cream Polo t-shirt and a red blouse.
The High Court found Karl's claim that he wore women's t-shirts suspect – I am using the High Court's words.
Karl testified that a Gucci wallet and a Braun Buffel wallet belonged to him and were gifts from his family. However, none of his family members could recall gifting him those specific items. High Court disbelieved his evidence and thought he was being untruthful.
The High Court disbelieved that a Helix watch was a gift from LML. That was Karl's evidence. LML denied having owned such an item.
Karl agreed that a pink knife that he had earlier said he had purchased before 2002, was likely manufactured after that date. The High Court said this affected Karl's credibility and his claim to ownership.
The High Court disbelieved Karl’s evidence that he had bought a bedsheet in the UK, from Habitat and that High Court said he had, I quote, \"fabricated his testimony\". The bedsheet had the same pattern as a quilt cover which had an IKEA label. Karl's wife, Heather, also testified that she had never seen the bedsheet in her room or on her bed.
A Gerald Genta watch – Karl said initially the value was $25,000. Defence experts put the then current value at $500, given its state: a chronograph pusher was missing, date malfunctioned and the strap needed replacing.
There are two issues here: whether Karl's evidence can be relied upon to convict Ms Liyani; and two, whether Karl was being dishonest.
The High Court chose to give little weight to what he said and said he was unreliable. Given that Ms Liyani's liberty was at stake, I think many lawyers will understand that the whole of Karl's evidence was disregarded, as the High Court did.
The second point – was Karl being dishonest? The High Court thought so.
Arising from this case – and this is an important statement of policy – AGC has decided that hereafter, if any judgment or decision issued in the course of any legal proceedings, contains findings that there may have been perjury or other serious offences, AGC will seriously consider whether there should be further investigations, proceedings, in respect of those indicated offences.
Karl has been investigated as to whether he committed any criminal offences, including perjury. Statements have been taken from Karl on the following points: whether the items highlighted by the High Court had been in his possession; his explanations for his inconsistencies during trial, regarding these items; the investigations have been completed. A statement will be announced later this evening based on these investigations.
Before I move on from the issue of credibility, let me say a few words about both Ms Liyani and the Liews. As I have said before, I am making these points to provide better context to deal with the questions that we are discussing and to better understand the basis on which Police and AGC proceeded.
I want to be brief because there are on-going investigations and proceedings. For the benefit of Members, we have prepared a table which sets out the different items; the evidence, including the inconsistencies in evidence of both Ms Liyani and the Liews, and the explanations, the State Court's views; and the High Court’s views. This is set out at Annex 7. [Please refer to Annex 7.]
Broadly speaking, Ms Liyani gave a number of reasons for her inconsistent answers: one, she did not understand the questions posed; two, the interviewers did not understand her answers or did not record her answers accurately; for example, when she admitted to taking the 10 to 15 items of male clothings; three, she meant to say something different from what was recorded in her statement; four, she was shown unclear or blurry photos of some items, so she might have given the wrong answers because she could not recognise the items properly; five, there was a black bag in her room, which contained items left behind by the previous helper of the Liews' which the previous helper did not want, and the items from that bag may have been packed into the boxes inadvertently by those who were helping Ms Liyani to pack.
As for the Liews, Karl gave inconsistent answers in some areas. And in some instances, the testimony of one of the Liews was either contradicted, or at variance with the evidence of another family member.
There was some debate on the value of some items. An expert witness said that the Helix watch was of \"no value\", and the Vacheron Constantin and Swatch watches were counterfeit and had no value. This testimony was not directly contradicted. The Defence also put in some articles on Dumpster Diving, suggesting expensive items, like branded bags do get disposed of in the trash in Singapore and thus, Ms Liyani could have picked them up from the trash cans.
The argument is that Ms Liyani could have found, for example, the Prada bag and the jewellery which May says were hers, in the trash. There are various aspects of Ms Liyani’s evidence which prima facie, raise scepticism. There were inconsistencies in many of her answers. Answers changed from one statement to another and from her statements to her evidence in Court. Several aspects of her evidence in Court also raise questions. Items which were said to be found in trash, for example. I will leave Members to reach their own views.
The Police and AGC thought she was untruthful. Based on the Police investigations. They assessed that she did steal and that is why she was charged. I am giving you this summary to let you know how the Police and AGC assessed the matter. And, of course, when they did so, they did not have the benefit of her evidence in Court. The State Court found her to be quite untruthful.
The High Court gave her the benefit of doubt because it was troubled by Karl's improbable, unreliable statements; some other inconsistencies in the Liews' testimonies and their conduct. And for other reasons, relating to the reliability of Ms Liyani's statements, if there were issues with the statement-taking, then that affects the question of whether there were in fact inconsistencies in her statements.
Moving on to the Liews, there are many aspects of Karl's conduct and evidence – some of which I have dealt with – which are highly unsatisfactory, which raise scepticism based on what he said at trial. He appeared not to be a credible witness. Filing a Police report, making claims on items need to be taken seriously. It does not have to be a comprehensive account, but it must be done with careful consideration. Looking at the evidence, the impression one gets is that there seems to have been a cavalier attitude on the part of the Liews in the way some items were identified as belonging to them and in the way values were ascribed to some items.
It is natural to expect that you will know and take your duties seriously when you file a Police report. Be careful in what you say and do, commensurate with your knowledge and experience. When you claim an item, you make sure it is yours. When you ascribe a value, make sure you have a basis.
Questions do arise about how one or more of the Liews have conducted themselves on these and other aspects. I do not want to say more. There is more I would have liked to have said. I have not made any comments about honesty. I have been somewhat restrained because of the investigations and I have referred to a statement that will be issued tonight as a result of the investigations.
In this context again, the key issue for us is to go back to the Police and AGC. They had the statements from the Prosecution witnesses. There was a prima facie case. They did not know that Karl or others would be inconsistent. The inconsistent evidence from Karl and other witnesses came at trial. That is not an unusual occurrence. It happens quite – I would not say quite frequently – but not infrequently. It depends on the cross-examiner, it depends on how much they had thought about it and other reasons.
But it happens often enough, in civil cases as well as criminal cases. So, there is nothing unusual about that either.
I will now deal with the fourth reason given by the High Court in acquitting Ms Liyani. A total of five Police statements were recorded from Ms Liyani. She gave the first four statements in Malay. She gave her fifth statement with the aid of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter.
Section 22(4) of the CPC requires a written statement to be read over to the person who gives it. This is usually done in English. When the person does not understand English, it must be read over in a language that he or she understands. The High Court found that there had been a breach of section 22(4) of the CPC, because Ms Liyani had not been given a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter for her first four statements.
The High Court also said that this was not a \"flagrant violation\". So, the statements remained admissible in court. They remained as evidence, though the Court will decide what weight to give to it.
In this case, the Police officers believed in good faith that Ms Liyani understood Malay. She had worked in Singapore for over 20 years. The recorder asked Ms Liyani in Malay whether she wished to give her statement in Malay or in Bahasa Indonesia. She chose to speak in Malay. There is no significant difference between Malay and Bahasa Indonesia in the asking of that question. She did not ask for an interpreter during the recording of her statements. The recorder testified in Court that he was able to communicate with her, without any difficulties.
The High Court recognised that she understood some Malay, though the extent of her understanding was unclear to the Court.
The High Court said that differences in the two languages could create reasonable doubt on the accuracy of the statements recorded.
As I said earlier, the Police believed in good faith that Ms Liyani understood Malay. And the Police accept that there are differences between Bahasa Indonesia and our Malay. And in specific words, some words, they could mean different things, in the context of this case and that can make a difference if Ms Liyani did not know the different meanings.
Section 22(4)(b) of the CPC makes clear the key requirement is that the interviewee understands what is being said.
A Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was provided in recording her final statement and when the charges were served on her. The final statement dealt with the majority of the areas covered in the previous statements recorded from Ms Liyani and the items in the charges that were tendered.
So, on that basis, her final statement is not affected by any issues relating to interpretation.
At trial, Ms Liyani said that she may not have understood some aspects of the final statement because it was read back in a mixture of Malay and Bahasa Indonesia, and that the interpreter was \"talking too fast\".
The High Court dismissed that claim. The statement reflected that it had been read back in Bahasa Indonesia, and Ms Liyani had affirmed that to be correct and true.
I will now, Sir, deal with the specific issues that have been pointed out by the High Court in respect of the Police investigations, AGC and the State Court's judgment.
I have earlier set out the facts that the Police had, after the investigations. They disclosed a prima facie case of theft. Police act in public interest.
There are about 250,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore, employed by more than 200,000 families. When there is a complaint of theft, Police need to be fair to both the employer and the domestic worker. It means Police will have to investigate properly when there is a prima facie case and let AGC decide whether to prosecute. If as a rule, Police take no action and if it is known that Police would not take action, Members can work out what the consequences will be for themselves, as in you can think and work out the consequences what such an approach will mean.
We have to approach this with the perspective of both the 250,000 foreign domestic workers, to be fair to them but also to the 200,000-odd families who employ them. If they believe that their employees have stolen or done something wrong, what are they supposed to do? It could be any one of these families. So, we have to be very careful in how we deal with this.
Police investigated about 66,200 criminal cases in 2016. I am referring to 2016, for illustrative purposes. And they were handled by about 1,100 IOs. Of the 66,200 cases, 14,122 were theft-related offences, in 2016. They resulted in 6,128 arrests.
If we drill down to theft as a servant, under section 381 of the Penal Code, there were 500 arrests in 2016 of whom 246 were foreign domestic workers. So, theft as servant cases involving foreign domestic workers, roughly one every 1.5 days or two every three days. Of those 246 arrests, 58 were prosecuted – 24%. So, three in four not prosecuted; one in four prosecuted. Who gets prosecuted? It is based on investigations and assessment by Police and AGC. And also, even when there is some case but if it is not clear, sometimes, warnings are given.
I have explained earlier the reasons for the prosecution in this case.
The case was handled by the Police like they handle any routine theft case. It was handled by the IO and cleared by his immediate supervisor. I say IO when he was out, one or other IOs did handle it as well, but at the level of the investigation officer, cleared by his immediate supervisor. This was a routine matter, cleared via normal channels.
The matter was not considered or brought to the attention of anyone senior, at any time. Except that many of us came to know about it, when it was reported in the media. I will come back to this later.
So, the question is, was there a clear, prima facie case for the Police to investigate? There was such a case. The Police had a duty to investigate. If any Member feels that Police should not have investigated, I would be happy to hear and understand their perspective.
The High Court commented on investigative processes, pointed out three aspects, which it felt were deficient. I will deal with all three.
First, that there was a gap between the Police report being filed on 30 October 2016 and the Police looking at the items, on 3 December 2016. The scene should have been visited by the Police close to the time of the Police report. This was a lapse, which affected some, but not all, of the items in the charges.
In terms of the acquittal, the High Court also acquitted Ms Liyani in respect of the items not affected by the break in the chain. So, the break in itself may not have affected the outcome given the High Court's reasoning.
However, there can be no excuse for this lapse on the part of the Police officer. It is a breach of a legal requirement; it is also a breach of Police protocol, both of which require the Police to respond to a crime scene promptly, or as soon as practicable.
The broader objective of these requirements is to ensure the integrity of relevant evidence by securing it into Police custody or otherwise obtaining a proper record of it.
Whether there has to be a seizure in any specific case must depend on the facts of the case, the nature of the exhibits and evidence. However, even if there is no seizure, it is necessary to obtain a proper record of the evidence, such as by careful photography of the items.
In this case, careful photography, soon after the Police report was filed, may have been good enough. But that was not done.
I said there can be no excuse. I have nevertheless asked for an explanation as to why this has happened. I am told that the officer involved had a number of other on-going cases, prosecutions, arrest operations and a very personal matter that he had to deal with. He seems to have been under a lot of pressure. He was in a predicament. It is a situation that many Home Team officers find themselves in. It is a reality of what our officers go through.
Nevertheless, internal investigations are being carried out in relation to the conduct of the officers involved in this case and action will be taken, as necessary.
I must say, Sir, I have noticed in various parts of the Civil Service, quite a lot of our officers are under work pressure. I have mentioned it at other points in this House. It is a general situation in some workplaces, many workplaces in Singapore with tight manpower issues, particularly in several areas of the Civil Service.
I have asked for a review of the workload of Police investigation officers, though quite frankly, there is no easy solution because fundamentally, it is a manpower issue. Technology has helped, will help, but that has limits.
The Police are also looking into online case management systems, to prompt officers on next steps in investigative workflows and ensure accountability and minimise the risk of lapses in investigations.
Next, I turn to photos. The second point that the High Court made about the Police was that \"poor quality\" black-and-white photos were shown to Ms Liyani.
Police agree that colour photos would have been more effective. Colour photos were shown to Ms Liyani in her final statement when a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was also provided.
Police will take on board the High Court's comments, which are fair.
The Police's review has shown that the layout of the photographs was also not satisfactory. Some photos featured multiple items in a single photograph, with some overlapping and partially obscured.
The third point the High Court made: the inaccuracies in recording the statements, the pace at which the questions were asked and the time when one statement was taken. And thirdly, the provision of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter.
I have dealt with the interpretation issue earlier. On this issue, I have said to Police officers we need to make sure accused persons understand the statement recording process, what it involves, what is required of them. I have asked the Police to ask what language the person wishes to speak, which they do, but also explain briefly what the process entails and the purpose of the statement. And that the accused may ask for an interpreter at any time and that this should be recorded as part of the statement.
The High Court also pointed out that there were inaccuracies in the way questions were phrased and there were grammatical errors.
Police have said to me that it is difficult to make sure there are no grammatical errors. But I think everybody agrees they need to try and make sure grammatical errors, if any, should not affect the interpretation and understanding of the statement itself.
The Police accept the point made about the time when statements are taken. Sometimes, the timing is inevitable, because of the legal requirement to release a person under investigation, within 48 hours. The Police will have to make an assessment on whether the person is capable of understanding the questions at the time the statements are taken.
As I have said, Police will take the comments on board.
The High Court also made observations about the AGC on how the functionality of the DVD player was demonstrated in Court. AGC has filed an affidavit explaining its position on record.
The matter is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings. And thus, I will refrain from commenting on this. I have been given a detailed note by AGC. I can set out the position, but I prefer not to. The disciplinary proceedings are by nature, disciplinary. There are possible penal sanctions. There will be full account of what the DPPs did, at the Disciplinary Tribunal or DT. The key question before us is whether there was any improper influence on them.
Minister Indranee has discussed this with Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, who was also concerned that we should not go into this in Parliament. Let the DT handle it. The proceedings are penal in nature. I think lawyers will understand why we take this approach.
AGC has also identified specific areas where it needs to improve. I will mention two areas.
First, the valuation of items that are the subject of property offences. In this case, the valuation of the items in the charges were derived from the Liew family's estimates. This has been the general practice hitherto, to rely on the complainant's assessment of the value. There are currently no formal guidelines for Prosecutors on the issue of valuation. Prosecutors are expected to use their judgement and discretion. AGC is developing guidelines on this issue. Independent assessment of the value of the items may have helped in respect of some of the items in this case.
Second, AGC is also looking at how it prepares for trials and will seek to learn from this and other cases.
There is a further, but general and important point. Prosecution's overarching role is to ensure that justice is done and not to win the case at all costs. The point is not being made by reference to this case. It is a general point. AGC has consistently emphasised this point to all its officers and will continue to do so. The Attorney-General himself has also publicly stressed his Chambers' commitment to the principle of even-handed justice, in his speeches at the Openings of the Legal Year, and elsewhere.
Now, I will move to the High Court's views on the State Court's judgment.
First, some background on cases dealt with by the State Courts. The State Courts deal with most of the criminal cases in Singapore. The appeals go to the High Court. About 10% of these appeals succeed, for instance, in setting aside the convictions or reducing the sentence. Ms Liyani’s case falls in that 10%.
This 10% of cases – there can be different views on evidence, on law, the exigencies of trial process, for example, witnesses say different things or something new turns up. The High Court disagreed with the Trial Judge's assessment of the evidence and made observations.
With that as background, I will say the views expressed by the High Court fall within the range of cases where an Appellate Court disagrees with a Lower Court.
In some of these cases, the Appellate Court does take a different interpretation of the evidence, draws different inferences, comes to different conclusions. That is the function of the Appellate Court when it takes the view that the Lower Court has made an error.
In 2018 and 2019, there were 16 appeals by the accused against conviction, when the Appellate Court disagreed with the Lower Court and reversed the decision. Nine were appeals from the State Courts to the High Court and seven were appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. So, even between the High Court and Court of Appeal, there are differences of view.
For example, in one of the cases Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v PP & anor [2019] 1 SLR 440, chain of custody issues also arose. In another case, PP v GCK [2020] SGCA 2, the State Court convicted the accused for outrage of modesty. He was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment, three strokes of the cane. The High Court reversed the conviction, and acquitted the accused, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence. On a criminal reference, the Court of Appeal reinstated the conviction but substituted the original sentence, with a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.
So, our State Court: one view. High Court: different view. Court of Appeal: a different view again.
The question for us, as I have said more than once, is not which Court was right or wrong. The key question: was the case conducted fairly in both Courts?
The State Court heard evidence from 12 Prosecution witnesses, four Defence witnesses, including Ms Liyani, over 20 days. It had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, consider their evidence, Ms Liyani’s submissions, and it made its findings. The High Court considered the Lower Court’s findings and Ms Liyani’s further submissions over three days and came to a different view.
This became a long and somewhat complex, or complicated, case. The Record of Proceedings runs to almost 3,700 pages.
I have brought this House through some of the issues in detail, as I said earlier, to give Members a slightly better appreciation of the evidence. The matter was thoroughly ventilated and considered by both the State Courts and the High Court. It was one of those 10% of cases where the Appeal Court disagreed with the Lower Court.
Sir, I have covered the points specific to the case. Let me now set out what happened in summary: one, there was clear evidence for the Police to investigate and for the AGC to prosecute this case; the Police and AGC dealt with this case like they deal with other theft cases.
There are questions about some aspects of one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, the claim of ownership of some items and the valuation by them – that appears to have been quite cavalier, to say the least.
Questions also arise about Ms Liyani’s conduct and evidence. The High Court gave Ms Liyani the benefit of doubt because it was troubled by one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, and because there were questions relating to her statements.
There are aspects of trial preparation where Police and AGC can improve.
Finally, the key point: there was nothing improper nor any undue pressure on the Police or AGC at any stage of these investigations and proceedings and no evidence of any personal connection between the Liews and any Police officer, DPP, Judge involved in this case.
I have gone through all of this because we have to show the Police and the AGC did not act arbitrarily, or as the result of the influence of a rich and influential family.
Those were the accusations that circulated immediately after the learned Justice Chan issued his judgment – that there was a grave miscarriage of justice, and AGC and the Police were asked to apologise.
What I put forward to this House show that the Police and AGC had good grounds to charge Ms Liyani. They certainly did not act at the behest of the Liew family. And this is how our system is supposed to work – Police and AGC made up their assessments based on the evidence.
The State Court agreed with the prosecution and convicted Ms Liyani. The High Court disagreed, overtuned the conviction, felt there were reasonable grounds to doubt the motives of the Liew family in making the Police report. Again, this shows how our system works.
The rest, Sir, I will deal with in Part 2. What I have said is the fundamental question relating to our systems. And I wonder, Sir, if this is an appropriate time to take a break.
Mr Speaker: Sounds like it would be. Order. I propose to take a break now and take the Sitting at 4.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.50 pm until 4.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister K Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, in Part 2, I will go to the broader questions that I identified, which is an inquiry, or rather, the questions I have dealt with in Part 1 inquiring into how the investigations and prosecution were conducted. Here, I want to go into the broader questions. The key question is whether the case was handled differently because of the status of the complainant or if there has been any improper influence.
Really, if I were to put it this way – did LML in any way influence these proceedings or was the case investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rules like any other case?
I have said it earlier and I will reiterate. I can be categorical. There was no influence by LML. It was treated as any other theft case and handled accordingly. We have checked with the IOs, their supervisor, the DPPs and their director. They have confirmed this. There was no pressure or influence exerted on them by LML or anyone acting on his behalf, and they handled this case as they have handled other theft cases.
I will now deal with the Police. I have set out how the Police handled the matter and what they took into account. It was dealt with by the IOs. Decisions were taken by them, together with their immediate supervisor. The case did not come to the attention of the senior management either at the Police or in my Ministry. No one senior has spoken with or been influenced by LML or any of the Liews on this case. Meaning, as I said, it was dealt with by the IOs and their immediate supervisor and no one beyond that. No one lobbied or exerted pressure either on the IOs or on the supervisor, or on anyone in a position to influence the investigations.
Turning to AGC, I have explained how the matter was dealt with by AGC. It was dealt with by DPPs and cleared at the level of a Director. Again, neither LML nor anyone acting for them, approached AGC or had any contact with AGC in this case. AGC dealt with Police.
There have been some questions asked specific to the Attorney-General, that he was on the Board of Directors of Capitaland between 20 November 2000 and 2 January 2006 when LML was the President and CEO. As a result, did AG in any way influence the proceedings? The answer is no. AG did not know of these investigations or proceedings until the case went for trial.
There is a further point. AG resigned from the Capitaland Board with effect from 2 January 2006. He resigned because he had a difference of viewpoints with LML on some issues. When AGC conducted its internal review on this matter, AG recused himself. AG felt that given the history of differences he has had with LML, the perception of fairness may be affected if AG oversaw the review. Thus, AG had nothing to do with this case at any stage. The case was conducted by the State Courts in open Court in accordance with the Rules.
This case is, in fact, an illustration of how the Rule of Law applies. A foreign domestic worker is charged, the High Court acquits her, the Complainant is a wealthy, powerful person, but all are equal before the Law. It does not matter who the parties are, Justice according to the facts and the Law as the Courts see it.
We may agree or disagree with the State Court's or High Court’s decisions and conclusions, but that is a different matter.
If you look at it at a systemic level, at the highest level, you talk about the criminal justice system – we have the Police who investigate in accordance with the legal framework for Police investigations. AGC make the charging decision based on available evidence and public interest. The Trial Courts consider the sufficiency of the evidence and the legal issues. The Appellate Courts review the decision of the Trial Court. The case shows that the criminal justice system, as a whole, works.
If you drill down to the next level, we have \"systems\". For example, these would comprise investigative protocols, SOPs for how the Police and the DPPs operate. I have mentioned some errors that were made, we have to try and strengthen the \"systems\" at that level, try and prevent re-occurrence. I have also mentioned the challenges.
Besides these levels to the system, there will always be the risk of mistakes by individuals. These lapses will have to be dealt with.
Sir, the idea of Rule of Law is central to our ideas of fairness, equality and justice. It is even more important in the current zeitgeist that is sweeping through countries. Societies around the world are grappling with debates on inequality, a sense that the elite are creaming off most of the economic benefits and bending the rules and systems to their advantage, and in the process buying off, suborning those in Government. People are fed up with unfair structures; equal opportunities are drying up.
In Singapore, we are not in the same situation. Our active intervention in socio-economic issues has helped most people to benefit. But our people know we must jealously guard the availability of equal opportunities. We must ensure that everyone has a fair shake. We must be alert, guard against the wealthy and the powerful taking unfair advantages.
If a significant section of our people feel that the system favours some, or that it is unfairly stacked against them, then Singapore will lose its cohesion and it cannot succeed. Thus, it is essential that we have a fair system, that we have a clean system, that we have a system that gives opportunities to all.
These are our fundamental concerns. If LML did unfairly influence the proceedings, then it will be a hit to our foundations and it will be a hit to our sense of fairness, equality and justice. And a dent to Project Singapore itself because Singapore is built on these ideals.
We have always been jealous about guarding against such corrosion. It does not mean that there will be no abuse of power and no corruption. But when it happens, swift, decisive action must be taken.
Members will know successive Governments have been clear about this. There has to be a ruthless intensity in upholding integrity. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set the tone. The case of Mr Teh Cheang Wan is a prime example of the approach. He was one of the most senior Members in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Cabinet. But when corruption allegations surfaced, Mr Lee directed the CPIB to conduct investigations. Mr Teh was placed on leave of absence. He ultimately chose to end his life rather than face trial or corruption charges, which the AGC had then yet to settle. Mr Lee said at that time, and I quote, \"There is no way a Minister can avoid investigations and a trial if there is evidence to support one.\"
These were the values of our Founding Generation and these are and have to be our continuing values. They have been scrupulously stressed and adhered to by the two succeeding Prime Ministers. They are like religious commandments. There cannot be any compromise. When there is a breach, action is taken, will be taken. Let me refer to some cases.
In 2012, you had Peter Lim, Commissioner of SCDF – in fact, he was Commissioner of SCDF when I was Minister for Home Affairs too – convicted of corruption charges for receiving sexual favours with three different women, sentenced to six months' imprisonment, dismissed from public service following disciplinary proceedings.
In 2013, you had Mr Edwin Yeo, Assistant Director of CPIB, misappropriating money, jailed for 10 years for criminal breach of trust or CBT as a public servant and forgery.
In 2007, you had Mr TT Durai, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation, convicted for corruption, sentenced to imprisonment; appeal to the High Court dismissed.
In 2012, you had Mr Howard Shaw, then-Executive Director of the Singapore Environment Council, convicted for obtaining commercial sex with minors; had asked for a nominal fine based on testimonials of his good character and social standing. Court found no exceptional circumstances; 12 weeks' imprisonment. Sentence was to provide a strong deterrent to others.
Peter Lim was a senior Home Team officer. In many countries, his actions would not have attracted criminal punishment. In most countries, Commissioners of SCDF, Assistant Directors of CPIB, are pretty much untouchable. But not in Singapore. The message is it does not matter who you are, if you do wrong, action will be taken.
But it is not only corruption that we must guard against. We must also guard against what I call soft corruption and influence peddling.
Let me quote what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee have said. In 1984, Mr Lee said, and I quote, \"We exercised power as trustees for the people, with an abiding sense of our fiduciary responsibility. Our honour, our sense of duty made us exercise power scrupulously. We have curbed, restrained, prevented any distortion of policies which would have been inevitable if the personal interests of the few in charge were allowed full rein. This is the case in many new countries.
When those in office regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative, they inevitably enrich themselves, promote their families, favour their friends. The fundamental structures of the modern state are eroded, like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked them. Then, the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders.”
And as early as 1961, the late Dr Goh warned about the risks, that groups of elites might create an environment that would favour one community at the expense of another. In an article in Nanyang University journal, 1961, he said, and I quote, \"To achieve an honest and energetic administration appears easy in theory. In practice, very few of the young and emergent nations have achieved this. Even in the most advanced and leading societies, whether communist or democratic, the problem of nepotism is a recurring one and can only be countered by constant vigilance.
In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism that is to be feared, but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no illegalities are committed, but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families. In underdeveloped countries, the matter could be more serious. A system may arise in which the dominant majority, whether of families, clans or even entire communities, arrogates to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant majority is thus able to point out that those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to this elite group.
Thus, many able and aspiring people are denied the opportunity for the full use of their abilities.\"
I personally find these words very powerful, insightful and have more than once quoted this speech of Dr Goh in my own speeches because Dr Goh, I think, has identified precisely a serious, insidious risk in any society including ours. We are not that special that we can be immune to these risks. We have to constantly make sure that we do not allow it. We have to be very careful to try and stamp it out wherever it appears, and make no mistake, make no mistake. It will keep appearing in big and small ways.
This is again something successive Prime Ministers have been vigilant about. One illustration of that is the letter that the Prime Minister sends out at the start of each new term of the House. Most Members are aware of the letter. I have put it in Annex 8. [Please refer to Annex 8.]
I will quote parts: \"the context each time may be different but the subject remains constant. Integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance. One vital factor to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity.
The reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. I cannot stress strongly enough every Member of Parliament (MP) must uphold the rigorous standards we have set for ourselves, do nothing to compromise them, never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers. A few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence Ministries and Statutory Boards, to make decisions in their favour. Personal favours, big and small, are just some of the countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obliged to them. At all times, be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.
Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies or who sit on company boards, should be especially vigilant. You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must be always above board. We have held our position because our integrity has never been in doubt. Always conduct yourselves with modesty, decorum, dignity.\"
I can tell Members this. This is all not just nice sounding advice. Even before it reaches the kind of conduct referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter, if we feel that there is some conduct that requires a closer look, we do take a closer look. I am referring here to conduct which is not criminal, not a breach of ethics, but which in our view should be avoided; something that may be legal but, for example, lead eventually to something which is not of so good odour.
When we sense that, I usually have a chat with the relevant MP. They come, have a cup of coffee with me. When they leave, the issue is usually resolved. And if it is not resolved, then they do not remain as MPs. But do not worry, it does not happen every time people come and have coffee with me.
If it is criminal, of course, there will be prosecution. And there have been MPs and ex-MPs who have been prosecuted. If there are breaches of other rules, the respective professional or regulatory bodies will take action, as they have done. We do not intervene or try and stop any of this.
I have dealt with this at some length because we must understand these are fundamental values. And if we do not keep them, we will be in trouble. In Singapore, in this context, we have a more challenging environment because we are a small place. A lot of people know each other – many educational, professional, work-related, social familial connections. Same schools, colleges, Universities, time spent in National Service, other connections. People interact with each other frequently. We try and look for the people on the basis of merit and they will often, because of their careers and education, have deep connection with many others whom they interact with.
The way we handle this – make sure the persons appointed are men and women of character. They have the moral fibre to do the right thing.
Earlier I had said, the Attorney-General recused himself from the review because of his history with LML. What will the position be if he was, in fact, a close friend of LML? We will expect him to disclose that and recuse himself as well from any decision making. This is how the system works.
Let me give a few examples. Prof S Jayakumar, when he was Minister for Law, what were his connections? When he was Dean, Law School, the then-AG’s wife had been his Vice-Dean. Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had been his law school contemporary. Former Commissioner of Police Goh Yong Hong was also his law school contemporary. And the succeeding Commissioner of Police Tee Tua Ba was Prof Jaya’s law student. The Attorney-General and I were his law students as well. I had spent 22 years in private practice; I worked with many Senior Counsels, senior lawyers, appeared before many Judges.
Our small size means these connections and interactions are inevitable. And so, we will always have to be very careful, always remember we are fiduciaries. This is a sacred trust. We do this for the people. We do the right thing. Do not allow any corrosion of public interest. Act with honour. Be worthy of the trust people have reposed in us. It is critical that, whatever the relationship, the Government maintains high standards of probity, of conduct so that decisions are made on objective and impartial assessment.
And have we lived up to those standards? Members can ask that question honestly. What is the lived reality for Singaporeans? How much corruption do people encounter here? We rank highly on credible international indices, for absence of corruption, for rule of law, for the way our system functions cleanly. This is a country known for all these – and that continues to be the case.
What happens if you allow the system to go awry? What happens when you allow influence peddling? What happens when you allow corruption, abuse of position, abuse of power? Let me just give a couple of examples.
First, the US. Influence peddling has become part and parcel of politics and governance. The US Supreme Court has said: “Ingratiation and access embody a central feature of democracy.” Not against the law for officials to set up meetings, host events, call other officials on behalf of lobbyists. Big businesses extensively lobby regulators, using middlemen.
I personally think this is not good for the healthy functioning of society. Lobbying itself in the US is a massive business. Big Pharma, for example, spent US$4.45 billion on lobbying alone over the last 22 years. And it works. One study found that regulators were 45% less likely to initiate enforcement action against banks that lobby versus banks that do not.
The experience of South Africa offers another example. In South Africa, \"State Capture\" is a buzzword because of how private interests have exerted influence over government decision-making and used this influence to plunder the state. Corruption scandals involving the former President and the Gupta brothers are the most famous examples. It is, of course, an extreme example of the system going awry.
The critical question for us: how do we ensure that the system stays clean, that we do not allow what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee warned against? We have a media that highlights these issues. See the number of articles that have appeared on this matter in the Singapore media - accountability, because a well-educated, aware population that holds us accountable; and Parliament, where we have these issues to be openly discussed, debated. All these are essential. But these factors are also present in many countries where influence peddling is, nevertheless, a cancer.
We have avoided that slippery path because, in addition to the above, we have had in our three Prime Ministers the strong will to ensure a clean system and the decisiveness to act when something goes wrong. And always, always, regardless of your rules and regardless of your systems, the rot starts at the top. If the top is clean, then your systems can work well. And we have got to make sure of that. And if it starts, then very few things can save such a country.
In this case, if we had seen anything wrong by way of influence peddling, swift, open, transparent action would have been taken.
Sir, I have spoken at some length on the case and on the broader issues. Now I will deal with the questions Members have raised by way of Parliamentary Questions, or PQs, which I have not already dealt with.
Mr Murali Pillai, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Derrick Goh have asked a number of questions about the High Court’s observations, the agencies’ processes, the internal reviews and related questions. Part 1 of my Statement has covered these points. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Derrick Goh have also asked for some information on foreign domestic workers, theft cases, Court proceedings.
I have said earlier, Police investigate around 14,000, in fact, 14,122 theft-related cases – I think that was in 2016. For the specific offence of Theft as a Servant, an average of 528 arrests annually, about 48% of them are foreign domestic workers. On average, about 70, or 27% of the 255 foreign domestic workers, were prosecuted. We do not track data on how many of them claimed trial or how many of them had legal representation.
At the same time, on the reverse side of the coin, from 2015 to 2019, 115 employers were prosecuted for committing offences against foreign domestic workers. This includes cases of physical and sexual abuse. Sixty-five persons have been convicted, 21 cases are pending.
Mr Louis Ng asked if foreign domestic workers and other work permit holders can be accompanied by non-legal personnel, similar to the Appropriate Adults, or AAs, scheme, for Police interviews. From 2015 to 2019, an average of 2,741 foreign workers on work permits were arrested each year as potential accused. Interviews have to be done quickly. I have earlier said Police are already very stretched. Let us not stretch them further. It will be a very difficult exercise. Appropriate Adults attended to 2,300 activations in 2019. These cases involved minors and mentally vulnerable persons.
If we had to provide AAs for every foreign worker interviewed, we would have to minimally double the current volunteer pool, provide the training and resourcing; and some may require more than one statement, and this will become a real constraint and load on the Police. And each time you have an interview, you have to look for an Appropriate Adult. Interviews will be delayed if the AA is not available. Evidence could go missing. There are other issues.
The foreign workers are adults. The key is for Police to make sure that the foreign workers understand the questions and their answers are properly recorded. And it has to be open for scrutiny in Court, which it is.
So that Members can understand the load on our officers, I will share the following. As I said earlier, Police investigated 66,200 criminal cases in 2016 and they were handled by 1,100 IOs. Just to give Members a sense, the ratio of Police officers to population – I have spoken about this previously in the House and I am here referring to Police officers in general, not just IOs – New York at 0.42%, London at 0.34%, Hong Kong at 0.39%, Singapore at 0.23%, including full-time National Servicemen.
If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would need 9,100 more officers. My entire Police force today comprises 13,200 Police officers, including National Servicemen. If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would have to have 9,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as London, we would need 6,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as New York, we would need 11,000 more officers.
So, Members can understand and appreciate the load on our officers and, as I have said, I have spoken about this in the House more than once. And my concern is that there is a limit to how much our officers can do with increasing workload and increasing expectations, but without a proportionate increase in manpower.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked how many State Court Judges had previously worked as prosecutors in the AGC and whether the Ministry will review the policy of separation of duties. This point has come up previously and let me put it this way.
The total number of lawyers in our Legal Service and Judiciary, excluding High Court Judges, is 801. That is a relatively small number. In this context, the question is: why are officers posted between the State Courts and other parts of the Legal Service? Can there be independence if they are liable to be cross-posted?
Let me quote something quite dated. Mr A P Rajah, a former Speaker and High Court Judge, said in 1963: “He thinks that if you are a DPP, then you cannot be a good District Judge; if you are a District Judge, then you cannot be a good DPP; if you are a first-rate DPP, then you cannot make a first-rate Assize Judge. He seems to suffer from that misapprehension. Merely to say that because one has been a DPP and that, therefore, when he gets on to the Bench, he is going to side with the prosecution, is not correct and is not fair to the profession.”
I am not suggesting that Mr Lim Biow Chuan or anyone else is under any misapprehension. I think it is a fair question. And this was said in 1963 when the number of officers was much smaller. What is the situation now? Today, all movements in the Legal Service are overseen by Personnel Boards and/or Committees all chaired by the Chief Justice, and the Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the President.
The Legal Service Commission takes the view that rotation has three major benefits.
One, it provides access to a larger pool of talent to select State Court Judges with the right blend of temperament, knowledge and experience.
Two, it develops Legal Service Officers (LSOs) into well-rounded officers by exposing them to, and training them in, different fields of legal work and allowing them to learn about their strengths and weaknesses. And this benefits the Legal Service and Singapore, no matter where the LSOs are posted in future.
Three, this also gives flexibility, for instance, to accommodate LSOs who want to try different types of work, or LSOs who have a change of heart about their preferred line of work. Judges who have prosecutorial experience will bring added knowledge to the work.
However, significant changes have also been made. In 2014, the Prime Minister announced greater specialisation in the Legal Service. There are now two separate career tracks for the middle ranks of LSOs. One is the “Legal” track and the other is the “Judicial” track. LSOs on the Judicial track are posted to jobs within the Judicial Branch and they are assessed by a separate Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board headed by the Chief Justice.
The Prime Minister explained why this was done: “We need a first-class Legal Service that in turn calls for a first-class personnel management system to attract and retain the best people, to remunerate them fairly with reference to the market, to groom talent systematically and prepare them for leadership positions and to imbue officers with the right values and commitment to Singapore.\" Up to now, we have always decided to stick to the integrated model because we had too few officers to support two separate services and we believed that LSOs would have a better career path in one single integrated service.
But it is timely for us to review the position again, in the light of changing circumstances. First, because the Legal Service is much larger, so officers can specialise without conscribing their career prospects. Second, because the scope and complexity of work, whether in the Government Ministries, whether in AGC or in the Courts, the scope of work has in all cases grown enormously in the Government, in the Ministries – there are more responsibilities. Hence, we need more specialist and expert skills than ever before.
Thus, the Legal Service Commission or LSC introduced two separate career tracks for LSOs up to Grade 3 – the \"Legal\" and \"Judicial\" tracks. Eligible officers can elect to specialise along either track. They will then be posted to jobs within either the Legal Branch or the Judicial Branch.
To oversee the two career tracks, two new Personnel Boards under the LSC – the Legal Branch Personnel Board and the Judicial Branch Personnel Board – were established. These Boards manage the LSOs in the respective Branches.
However, even as we promote more specialisation, it is critical that the Legal Service operates as an integrated whole. The specialisation into the two tracks is for the middle ranks of the Legal Service. Junior officers starting out on their careers will still be posted to different departments and across branches to develop them in different fields of legal work.
Beyond Grade 3, the senior officers at Grade 2 and above will still be managed by the Legal Service Commission because at that level of seniority, there will only be very few officers and it is necessary to continue with the integrated model to provide better career options and flexibility in deployment to meet the needs of the Service.
The approach we have adopted strikes a balance between specialisation and integration, with safeguards for judicial independence. The system is working well. And we think that this is what is good for Singapore.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked whether there can be an expedited trial process for foreign economically vulnerable accused persons and he has also asked about the interpretation services in SPF.
First, on the trial processes, the median time taken in the Courts for a criminal case from being first charged in Court to judgment is 15 months – median. Depends on the nature of the case, availability of counsels, DPPs, how long the trial itself takes, documents, witnesses, challenges that the Prosecution and Defence make, and time taken for deliberation.
The State Courts, as I said earlier, handle about 600 criminal trials per year. We have 55 judges to handle these trials. Again, it is a very heavy load for the State Courts. About a quarter, 22% of these cases, involved foreigners.
If we expedite a case for a foreign person, then a Singaporean accused will have to wait even longer, if we take Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestion. So, having a criminal case pending, why should we make Singaporeans suffer disproportionately more?
If I can give one example. We had a 51-year old Singaporean accused person charged in March of this year for two counts of shop theft. He claimed trial to the charges against him and was remanded. In June 2020, AGC assessed that his remand period, three months at that point, might outstrip his possible sentence even if he were to be convicted. At the Public Prosecutor's request, the trial was brought forward and conducted on an urgent basis. A two-day trial was conducted, after which he was convicted and sentenced to 16 weeks' of jail.
There will be many other cases like this but even if there is no specific remand situation, if you bring forward some people in the queue, the others in the queue will have to wait longer. And I do not think it is fair to Singaporeans to do what Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested.
Second, on the interpretation service, I have given a fairly extensive answer. The Police currently employ a pool of interpreters for the three official working languages – that is, Chinese, Malay and Tamil – as well as more common local dialects – Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese.
The Police will engage the services of interpreters if the interviewee is unable to understand the language used by the interviewer or vice versa. For foreign languages, the Police will engage the services of foreign language interpreters on an ad hoc basis. There is a framework to assess the suitability of interpreters, which includes their qualifications and relevant work experience.
As regards Ms Liyani in this case, she was asked. She said she could speak in Malay. The point is: does the interviewee understand the language being used? And as I said earlier, the Police have been told – they must really check this.
Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Leong Mun Wai have asked about increasing legal aid for accused in criminal cases; and secondly, increasing the honoraria paid for lawyers under CLAS. Ms Carrie Tan has specifically also asked if we will consider having a public defender scheme to defend accused persons in criminal cases.
Let me give Members some background to the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS. CLAS aims to provide legal aid to persons facing non-capital charges. It is administered by the Law Society's Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS. This scheme was started in 1985. The initiative came from the Law Society, senior lawyers, in particular the late Mr Harry Elias. And it was an outstanding initiative by the profession.
There is in place a framework, an assessment process, means and merit tests applied in each case to try and ensure that funding is targeted, allocated to applicants who are most vulnerable and who genuinely need assistance.
The Government pays 75% of CLAS' operating costs. This goes towards general operating costs, including staff salaries and overheads. This was decided in 2014. I announced it and it started from 2015.
Where the accused are Singapore Citizens or PRs, the money can also be used to pay honoraria. CLAS funds the remaining 25% of its costs through private donations. Law Society pays some. And this sum is also used to defend foreigners who need criminal legal aid.
But I should make clear. I have referred to honoraria. The honoraria that is paid is extremely nominal. It is effectively pro bono.
It is a system where the Government funds some part; the private sector funds some part, through cash donations, lawyers giving their time.
Should we change the model and go for full Government-funded criminal legal aid? Let me first give Members a sense of the experiences of other countries. I will just give the experience of two countries though we can look at many countries' experiences.
The United Kingdom, or at least England and Wales, offer a fully government-funded criminal legal aid scheme which comprises both a public defender scheme with in-house government lawyers and a legal aid scheme that outsources cases to private lawyers.
There has been much public debate and outcry in the UK over these schemes for various reasons, including abuse and escalating government costs.
First, there has been much unhappiness over the large legal aid fees, especially evident in cases where legal aid was spent on lengthy trials for defendants who were ultimately convicted. For example, three men who were accused of the murder of a policeman known as Andrew Harper. When they tried to evade arrest, he tried arresting them, they killed him, it cost the UK taxpayer S$817,000 in legal aid fees in 2008. And they were convicted of manslaughter in the end.
Another case was that of Ben Butler and his partner Jennie Gray, who were convicted of murdering Butler's six-year-old daughter and of child cruelty. Both were granted nearly S$2.64 million in legal aid expenses, covering both their criminal cases and a custody battle with the child's grandparents.
There have been many reports about rich defendants who received legal aid as their assets were frozen, but they remained wealthy enough as the state did not manage to seize all their assets.
Around 50 defendants with more than S$1.76 million in illegally obtained assets were found to have received legal aid in 2012. One of these was Virendra Rastogi, a London metals trading tycoon, who owned a S$10.55-million home, arrived in court every day in a chauffeur-driven car and he received S$8.79 million worth of criminal legal aid. These defendants were ordered to repay their legal aid costs but some failed to pay up despite court demands.
Given the large legal aid costs, it has been difficult for the UK government to sustain this level of spending. The government has had to implement drastic cuts to legal aid budgets since 2012, but these reforms were strongly opposed by the legal industry. Lawyers deemed the reformed fee schedules to be inadequate, went on strikes in 2014 and again, in 2018, to oppose cuts, disrupting court proceedings and delaying the resolution of criminal cases.
In one case, a convicted drug dealer was allowed to keep his alleged $7.9 million fortune because of delays in finding a legal aid lawyer to represent him in confiscation hearings. The lawyers' protests eventually resulted in more watered down reforms, continued escalating legal aid costs for the government and legal aid lawyers won a $40 million fee rise after the 2018 strike.
You must note: once you make legal aid a requirement, then you cannot proceed with the case until you find a lawyer who is willing to handle it for the fees that he proposes.
If we take Ms Liyani's case as an example, the Defence Counsel has estimated that if full fees were charged, it could have cost about $150,000. If we make criminal legal aid a requirement, then the taxpayers will have to pay that amount or whatever the Defence Counsel requires. It could be more, it could be less, or have the trial postponed until a lawyer is found.
This is what is happening elsewhere. So, I welcome suggestions but Members, please look at these points. And then, when you make your points, maybe offer concrete suggestions on how we can avoid what has happened elsewhere, if we want to go down this route.
My second example is Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a fully government-funded public defender scheme that outsources part of its cases to private lawyers and the Law Society. Hong Kong spent a total of $217 million on both civil and criminal legal aid in 2017. Hong Kong has also experienced escalating legal aid budgets due to continued increase in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year.
This is why we have been very careful.
We also looked at the situation in Australia, New Zealand – raised similar issues. I would go into them, but we knew it can get very costly and very difficult to manage.
So, in our situation, we have actually been very fortunate because our legal profession has worked with Law Society, the Government. We have got CLAS. It has been a cooperative relationship and a strong public spirit. We make Singapore a vibrant legal centre. It means our lawyers do well in the other areas and we are able to encourage the pro bono spirit at the same time.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked can we increase the honoraria that is paid to lawyers under CLAS. My preference is to keep the probono spirit. A mix of lawyers employed specifically by CLAS, small number; lawyers from private sector, coming in – I think it is a better approach.
So, our approach has been legal aid for those who truly need it with public and private partnership, tapping on the excellent pro bono spirit of our lawyers. And should we give it up?
But I will say this. We are also not completely satisfied with the current model. There are some hard questions. How can we better help those who cannot pay for lawyers and yet, make sure that we do not go down the road that other countries have travelled?
Last year, we reached the five-year mark since the enhanced CLAS was announced in 2014. As I said earlier, CLAS was originally initiated in 1985 by the late Mr Harry Elias, together with a group of lawyers, to better help those who could not pay for a lawyer.
In 2015, pursuant to my announcement in 2014, we enhanced CLAS, with the support of the legal profession and we started reviewing the enhanced model last year which is the five-year mark since we made the first announcement. We have been considering different possibilities, including possibly a public defender's office.
CLAS today covers the lowest 25% in terms of household income. Should we expand that number? I am happy to hear from Members. We will consider suggestions seriously.
I should also mention that in 2014, when we announced the enhanced CLAS, some in the legal profession were very concerned that this was going to eat into their rice bowl. There was some disquiet. We received a petition from some lawyers – not that few – about the possible adverse effect of the enhanced CLAS on their work, on their livelihoods.
Then Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and I met some of these concerned members from the criminal bar in 2014. We showed them the figures – that we were not going to take away their work, that we were helping those who could not have gone to them anyway. People need to be helped and that is central to the Government's mission.
Our profession has 781 firms who have between one and five lawyers in the firm. Of these 781, 233 firms practise criminal law. In terms of lawyers, there are about 750 lawyers who practise criminal law. Many depend heavily on the smaller value legal work on criminal cases. We should aim to have a structure that helps those who truly need help but does not become an unacceptable strain on the treasury. For those who can afford to pay for lawyers, the taxpayer should not have to pay for them.
In this context, the public defender's office, assisting together with the means and merits test, seems like a good option. Law Society is in principle supportive of expanding criminal legal aid in order to enhance access to justice. However, the Law Society's council has expressed strong concerns on the impact on paid work, especially for small firms. They had doubts as to whether this proposed expansion that the Government has been discussing with them would so neatly capture Singaporeans who could not afford lawyers' fees. The criminal bar representatives have counter-proposed to expand the coverage of offences, rather than increase the means test coverage.
We will continue discussions and decide.
The primary factor will be, as I have said, to ensure that those who cannot afford lawyers can get access to justice without the situation becoming fiscally difficult for the taxpayer and the Government is discussing but in principle prefers the approach of a public defender's office.
So, the answer to Ms Carrie Tan's question is yes. We have been and we are considering seriously a public defender's office. We will study the details and feasibility of this further in consultation with the Law Society and the criminal bar.
I have used the term \"public defender's office\" assuming that everyone understands what it means. Maybe I should explain. \"Public defender's office\" means the Government pays for the lawyers, employs the lawyers in a separate structure, and they act in criminal cases to defend the accused; with a suitable means test and a suitable merits test.
\"How many officers? How big? How much?\" are conversations we have to have with MOF, amongst others. But in principle, we will have to first discuss it with the profession and then talk to MOF and deal with the issue. But in principle, our approach, I think, might have to go down that route and at least my Ministry, MinLaw, is in favour of this approach.
Finally, a Committee of Inquiry. Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked for a Committee of Inquiry to consider the conduct of the Police and AGC in relation to Ms Liyani's case. I assume his concern is whether there was any undue influence by or on behalf of the Liews on the Police or AGC in this matter.
Sir, Committees of Inquiry under section 9 of the Inquiries Act, which sets out the list of purposes for which a Committee of Inquiry may be appointed – accidents involving deaths, serious injuries, serious property damage, incidents that may endanger public safety or public health, conduct of a Ministry department, statutory body falling under the responsibility of the Minister, conduct of any officer employed by such Ministry department or statutory body.
I think it will be clear to Mr Leong if he had looked at section 9 that I do not have the power to appoint a Committee of Inquiry in respect of AGC because it is not an agency that reports to me. Now that I have shown the Member this, I think he will acknowledge his request is legally not doable.
Let me make a set of broader points. If the Member really wants another inquiry into this matter, then what will be necessary is a Commission of Inquiry, not a Committee of Inquiry. That is very high level, headed by a Supreme Court judge or someone qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.
I am prepared to recommend to the Cabinet that we have a Commission of Inquiry but the Member should first tell us what he wants this Commission of Inquiry to look into and he should confirm that he will come to the Commission of Inquiry and state his position.
I say this for the following reasons. The officers involved, both AGC and the Police, have confirmed categorically no improper pressure. Ms Liyani's case was dealt with as a routine case. I have set out the facts, what has happened. It shows clearly there was a good prima facie case to proceed. There is also the Disciplinary Tribunal which will inquire into the complaint against the AGC officers.
Thus, before we have a Commission of Inquiry, which is a serious matter, will take up resources, lots of time, more and more work, the Member should specify what part of this matter continues to reasonably make him believe and question that undue influence was used, by the Liews? What exactly by reference to what the Police did and what AGC did? I would like him to tell us, Sir, before I carry on.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): To answer the Minister, first of all, I am aware there is a difference between a Committee of Inquiry and a Commission of Inquiry. The reason I raised a question is to try to first establish a principle. Do we all agree that there is a need to have an independent inquiry into this case?
Secondly, as to why I think it is still important to have an independent inquiry is that, the more I listened to the animated presentation and speech or Statement by the Minister, the more I found that there are a lot of information regarding the case that could be further investigated and further interpreted, and come up with a more informed judgement of the whole situation.
Of course, the Minister had provided a lot more information today, which I fully appreciate. I did not have those information when I raised this question and proposition but still, after listening to the Minister, I think that there is still a need to have an independent inquiry. As to what form it takes, I think the Minister has explained. Maybe we have to go to the level of the Commission of Inquiry.
I think Singaporeans are expecting that we do further investigation into this case, not just about the influence peddling but also about the systemic aspect of the whole criminal justice system, that maybe we need to look at various aspects which, actually, the Minister has enlightened us tremendously today. For example, the evidence gathering, contamination and when the Court refers to – I am not a lawyer, no legal training but I was told by lawyers it could be called evidence contamination and all those things. And also, about how AGC had made the decision and about whether there is a need to have a public defender's office and all that.
All these things, I thought, are very enlightening, but I think it requires more discussion so that we can come up with a better system. It is not just influence peddling that we are talking about here. I hope that answers the question, Minister. Thank you, Speaker.
Mr K Shanmugam: Not quite. First, let us settle this. I do not understand why if you knew the difference between a Committee of Inquiry and a Commission of Inquiry, you have asked me to do something that is not possible. It does not make any sense, but let us move on.
All I want to know, the public defender's office, for example, the Commission of Inquiry will have nothing to do with that. It is a policy statement. So, Mr Leong, can I ask you, a Commission of Inquiry is a serious business. We are not shying away from it. I am prepared to recommend it. That is not the issue. But as I said, it is not a question of making some broad and vague statements. You are a representative of the people. We take it seriously. This is serious business. It is not a question of saying, \"I am not a lawyer. Lawyers said something about contamination of evidence\".
I have set out in the House what has happened. I would expect you to be able to tell me based on what you have heard which part leaves you concerned with either the influence peddling issue or any other issue. I mean, waht do we have a Commission of Inquiry on the entire legal, the Police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So, can we please have some clarity on what is it that concerns you? What aspect?
I assume you have read the judgment. I assume you have read the key material. I assume you knew that there was something specific or a set of specific issues that you want to focus on – which is why you asked. So, what are those issues? What is it that you want the Commission of Inquiry to look into which has gone wrong?
Is it the translation issue? I have told you what happened with the translation. Is it the fact that they took five weeks – the Police – to go and look for the items. I have told you what has happened and I told you there are disciplinary proceedings against the officer. So, what is it exactly that you are looking for? And I will be prepared to recommend to the Cabinet to hold a Commission of Inquiry.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong. Please be specific in your responses.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Minister, I think one issue, for example, after listening to your Statement, specifically, I was thinking, for example, you mentioned about the Police having taken five weeks to attend to the evidence. You said that there were some lapses but nevertheless, the manpower situation is very tight. I think that is my interpretation. I may be wrong. So, to me, even if the manpower situation is tight, do they need five weeks to attend to the evidence, for example.
I am quoting this as an example, because I think there are many aspects as I said just now that need further investigation so that we can come up with whole integrated and overall look at the whole systemic aspect of of the criminal justice process, so that we can come up with a better solution. That is the reason why I have recommended that we have an independent inquiry.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Leong, if it is the five weeks, I have told you, I said to the House, there is no excuse for the five weeks. I said there is no excuse but I asked for an explanation. The Police do not in any way seek to defend it, but we gave an explanation. I said there are manpower issues but that is not an excuse and the officer is facing disciplinary proceedings.
So, what is it about the five weeks that concerns you? Is it that he was unfairly influenced? Is it something else? He should not have taken that length of time. He will be disciplined. His reasonings will be gone into and he will be dealt with.
If it is about the five weeks, I am not prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry for that purpose, because the question you asked does not make sense to me. Is there any other issue that you are concerned about?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Minister for the question. If that is the case for the five weeks, then we will take it as that. For another aspect, for example, you have been trying to interpret LML's behaviour and his family's behaviour. Their interpretation could also be further, sort of, investigated and analysed.
For example, in terms of the misbehaviour, it is quite common that when we have the maid at home, we do actually have some leeway for her to do certain things, to the extent that sometimes she takes something and you know —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, we can call an inquiry into any issue. So, you have been asked, what specific issues do you have that warrants asking for this Commission?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, may I intervene?
Mr Speaker: Please do.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Leong, I have said that there are 250,000 foreign domestic workers and about 200,000 families. How they interact with each other cannot be the subject of a Government Commission of Inquiry. The Government Commission of Inquiry has got to look at Government institutions and organs.
I have talked about the motive issue. I have explained why it is not to cast doubt on anything but to say we had to investigate because the High Court made some observations. As a result, we made the investigations. Now I have the information in my hand, I have no choice but in duty of frankness, I have got to put it to this House. But I explained what was the evidence that AGC and the Police had, so that Members understood what was the prima facie evidence that Police and AGC had.
It is legally not possible to hold a Commission of Inquiry to look into the conduct of employers and maids. That is not the business of the Commissions of Inquiry.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Minister, I understand that. At the same time, you have an interpretation of the motive and you have the benefit of having new information.
Mr K Shanmugam: The interpretation of motive has got nothing to do with the Government, Government organs. I have just explained why that was put forward. It has got nothing to do with how the Police proceeded. It has got nothing to do with how AGC proceeded. It is something that has come out in the course of the investigations, subsequent investigations. How is that a subject matter of a Commission of Inquiry?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, but then when there is new information, coupled with the information that came out of the Court process, do we not have to get to the bottom of it? You have provided one interpretation —
Mr K Shanmugam: The High Court has acquitted Ms Liyani. That is final. This House is now dealing with whether there was any improper influence exerted on AGC or the Police. I have given you the facts. I have given you categorical confirmations as to at which level this was handled. I have also said as a result of the High Court's comments, the investigations, some facts came out which we are disclosing to you. I have also said later this evening an announcement will be made as to what are the next steps to be taken as a result of those investigations.
I am not prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry to look into this issue of motive. It cannot properly be the object of a Commission of Inquiry.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Minister, I think what I am trying to drive at is that the whole case probably requires more investigation and interpretation of the facts. So, if you think that is enough then I will withdraw my proposition or recommendation for an independent inquiry.
Mr K Shanmugam: I have to say, Mr Leong, it is not right to come here and say, \"I think that a Commission of Inquiry is necessary. I cannot tell you why. I cannot tell you what my concerns are. I cannot pinpoint anything. I make no allegations. But in general, you know, it is good to have a Commission of Inquiry.\" Commissions of Inquiry do not proceed that way.
Let me put it on record. I have no problem recommending such a Commission of Inquiry. Obviously, I am not saying this without having consulted with my Cabinet colleagues. Cabinet will be prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry. We have nothing to hide, completely transparent about this issue. But it is not, in law, they would say, micawberism. It is not because something strikes your mind and suddenly you get this idea, that we have Commissions of Inquiry. You have had several weeks now since the High Court judgment. If there is something specific, put it down, we will hold a Commission of Inquiry. So far, I have heard nothing.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, thank you, Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Pritam Singh wants to raise a point.
Mr Speaker: Would you like to raise a point, Mr Pritam Singh?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Minister, have you wrapped up your reply?
Mr K Shanmugam: I have not quite. I thought you wanted to take part in the exchange.
Mr Pritam: No, no. I want to pursue a different line of inquiry! [Laughter.]
Mr K Shanmugam: I am always happy to hear from you, Mr Singh.
Sir, I had intended to say that I am prepared to recommend to Cabinet to hold a Commission of Inquiry if the Member stands by his views, despite what he has heard today, and provided he will come to the Commission and repeat those allegations. But so far we have heard nothing that I can rationally put together to justify a Commission of Inquiry. So, I will leave it at that. I think I have answered all the Members' questions. And if Mr Singh wants to ask something, so yes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the extended remarks on this matter.
I have two questions. One pertains to the comments made by Minister on the lapse vis-a-vis investigations from the 30 October to 3 December. This was in Part 1 of Minister's Statement. I think from the public perspective, there is a concern when investigations for whatever purposes are somewhat not conducted properly or what the Minister said, \"in breach of Police's requirements\". So, my question really is what is the extent of this issue? The Minister alluded to manpower problems. I think the concern is, moving forward, how significant does the Minister assess this matter to be? Can it be a matter that can be resolved by directives or circulars from the Commanding Officers of various Divisions? That is the first inquiry.
The second is pertaining to a statement that I believe that was made today by the NGO HOME about a complaint that Ms Parti Liyani lodged against the Police concerning the way the IO conducted himself at trial. I would like to inquiry whether those investigations have been completed, and if they have been completed, can the Minister share what have been the Police's findings?
My last issue – actually, it is not a question. The Minister spoke earlier of sharing some Annexes with Members of this House. If I heard him right, he said the Annexes would be outside the Chamber. I do not believe there are any Annexes outside. We just have Annex 3. Are those other Annexes going to be shared now or will we receive them later? That is just a question of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr K Shanmugam: On the Annexes, Mr Singh, there was a set that they were distributing but let me go and check. I think other Members also say they do not have it, so I will check. During the break, they were supposed to have distributed but we will try and make sure of that. I apologise. So, that is a small matter.
Now, the lapse. Again, let us be clear. The manpower issue cannot be an excuse. Let us be clear about that. I have made that clear. It is a breach of Police rules, it is a breach of the law and disciplinary action is being taken. I will have to check whether the rules allow this but if the rules allow this, I will find out the details of what happened and I am happy to share it with Mr Singh, when eventually it is dealt with. In this case, it is not to be treated as a precedent.
The broader reason for this is, of course, a matter of concern. And in my Ministerial Statement I said I have asked myself how often are IOs under such kind of pressure. So, there is a review, the Police will come back to me and let me know how much pressure they are under. But I have given you the broader statistics and you can understand in every aspect of policing work. It is not a matter unknown to you all. I think Ms Sylvia Lim has raised it more than once in this House about the pressure that lack of manpower resources have put the Police under. It is common to both sides of the House on this issue. But I have asked on the extent of the pressure and I will get a better sense of it.
On the statement by HOME, I have not been able to look at it very carefully. But we have focused, in my Ministerial Statement, on what the Judge dealt with. As far as I am concerned, those are the issues that are raised, that I have to deal with here.
If there is a specific concern about what has been set out in the HOME statement, a question can be put up and we can deal with it.
But I will say this. Though it arises from a Police report that Ms Liyani has made – not Ms Liyani, I think HOME had made. A number of things. Four things were mentioned. One was the translation issue that I had dealt with. The other was the fact that five weeks were taken, which I have dealt with. I really wonder how these are matters for filing of a Police report. The fact that the IO took five weeks is a matter that a victim files a Police report to complain about?
And I think, Mr Singh, we all know that Ms Liyani is not doing this. We know why this is being done. But the Police will deal with it and will respond in due course. And I am not suggesting that anybody in this House is responsible for it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister for the clarification.
The Minister has spoken about the issue of motive by the Liews. I took out a copy of the judgment issued by Justice Chan Seng Onn and in one of his statements, he had said that, \"I find the Prosecution had failed to dispel the reasonable doubt raised by the Defence and showed that there was no improper motive by Mr Liew and Mr Karl in making the Police report.\"
I was wondering if the Minister clarify whether the Liews have an improper motive in filing this Police report.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I took the House through the facts so that we can understand the information that the Police and AGC had. Also, the further investigation that was necessitated by the High Court's comments. And then, we got information which we had to set out to this House. That information was not before the High Court, as I said. And I said that the High Court ruled the inference that it did, naturally and understandably, based on the information that it had. And I am not in a position to say anything really beyond that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his explanations. I have three clarifications. The first is in relation to the duration of the case – four years. Four years is a fairly long time for a person not to be employed, and then, eventually, acquitted. So, would he be able to explain the four-year duration?
The second point is about entrenchment of impartiality within the system, what more can be done to entrench impartiality. I am not insinuating that it does not exist. I think it does exist. But what can we do more to entrench it?
And the third point is somewhat related. It relates to capital cases – whether in capital cases, in trials, there can be two judges hearing a capital case in the first instance, and then possibly five judges on appeal, arising from the various different opinions between each levels of court.
Mr K Shanmugam: The duration of the case, and I will have to stand corrected if I get anything wrong here. Let me try and speak from memory.
In December 2016, the investigation started. I think it took about six months to June, middle of 2017, for the papers to be sent to AGC and then there was back and forth as I had said between AGC and the Police. It took about six months because of the number of items and the Police had to check the items and so on. I think the first pre-trial conference was in late 2017, if I am not wrong. And dates were taken for early 2018.
There were some difficulties with counsel's diaries. So, the case was then tried in 2018.
The High Court hearing took place in 2019 on appeal and judgment was delivered in 2020. I think the High Court hearing took place over three different tranches and spread over from 2019 to early 2020. I think it was a question of dates as well. So, these are matters that are not really within our control.
I think Mr de Souza had another question on entrenchment of impartiality; what more we can do? That is a very important question.
We have to take very seriously what I said just now, about we got to be always on guard to see some sort of — Explicit bias, we can all see. But implicit bias, growing in, we have got to guard against that.
I think the system we have today is the best that we can find in the sense that the Police have a clear role. They investigate, they work with AGC. At AGC, there are chains of command. AGC acts as a sieve. As you notice, if you take foreign domestic workers, 25% of the theft cases go for prosecution. Not insignificant, but at the same time it is not as if every case goes for prosecution. They make an assessment.
Then, you have the system of Courts. This is what I meant by the system at the top level. The Police, AGC, State Courts, High Court – all working independently as they should; looking at it, and hopefully the right result is arrived at. I think that is the safeguard.
Good people across all the different parts, clear rules, transparency and accountability. When people ask questions, we have to be accountable here. And if something goes wrong, the will to put it right as well. I think those are the things that you need to look at and to be very alert about any kind of influence peddling.
The question on capital cases, this is something that has been discussed previously – whether we ought to have two judges instead of one. We had two judges and then we moved to one judge. The Member's question is whether we go back to two judges and five judges on appeal. It is not something that implicitly the Government is opposed to, but it is something that will need to be discussed. I do not know that you need five judges on appeal, necessarily. But this is something that we will discuss with the Courts.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the Statement. I just have a clarification in regard to confusion or the alleged confusion on the statements. Are there any plans to video record all statements taken from accused persons?
Mr K Shanmugam: Actually, if you could do video recording, that is a gold standard. Once you have that, there can be no questions about what happened during the statement-taking.
We have announced it in phases: Phase 1 has taken place, Phase 2 was earlier this year, but there is a serious bottleneck. Let me explain this. One way is to say we just take a video and use that as evidence, but it could be a three-hour session, or four-hour session. It means AGC will have to spend three hours trying to look at it and then, re-look at it. As opposed to reading a transcript, which is much faster, and time wise, it does not work. Likewise, in the Courts, both at pretrial conferences as well as hearings. It does not work. It does need to be transcribed. The problem has been transcription. Because today, the technology for automatic transcription is not yet mature enough for the document to be precise, to be used in court.
And internally, the Police – both have an infrastructure issue in terms of the kind of rooms that are needed, equipped for this. But that is something we can overcome with a lot of money and further resources. But the manpower needed to transcribe is very difficult in this case. So, we have been bottlenecked on moving on to a wider and wider range of cases for video recording because of the administrative processes. So, that is what held us back from expanding.
We are doing it. I think the first case where video recording has been done, is going to Court or is in Court. When we have tried outside providers, that has not worked well either, because we saw a lot of errors. And you know, in statement-taking, when you see from Ms Liyani's case, statement-taking can be can be a serious issue in court, with what the words mean or what the words are said.
So, when we have used outside providers that has resulted in problems too. And we have had to sit back and redo all the statements. So, this has been the issue. While I would like to go down this route, we have had some difficulties.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Another issue that arises I think in relation to vulnerable victims is whether or not they should have earlier access to legal counsel. In Singapore, accused are allowed to access to legal counsel after a reasonable time. In other systems, it is allowed at an earlier time. So, I would the Minister consider earlier access to legal counsel?
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Vikram Nair is a lawyer, he knows that access is allowed within a reasonable time after investigations begin. What is a reasonable time? It seeks to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and public interest, to ensure thorough, objective investigations.
The current situation is that 96% of the persons arrested – this is based on a 2019 study by Police – are released within 48 hours of the arrest. Immediately after they are released, 48 hours, they are able to consult legal counsel. Where it is necessary to continue remanding a person for longer than 48 hours, the Police will have to apply to Court; and the Court will, of course, weigh the different considerations in deciding to order further remand.
There have been instances where the Police have applied to Court for an earlier mention date when investigations are completed, before the end of the remand period. Since March 2006, the Police have had an Access to Counsel Scheme to grant an accused person access to counsel during this remand period, as long as investigations have been completed or are nearing completion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, I would like to wind the clock back to about a quarter century ago, when Minister was a backbencher and a practising lawyer. I think sometime around 1994. I did some research. The Minister raised the subject of the setting up of an office of an ombudsman.
In the light of this case, I would like to ask Minister whether he thinks this is still appropriate because I noticed that in this particular case, whilst there is no need to doubt the agencies, many are working in silos. And the agencies are respectively doing investigations on their own personnel.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, I am tempted to give the same answer I gave to Mr Leong earlier. In any event, Sir, there are different parts to this question. I recommended it or I suggested it many years ago. This is something I think Mr Singh has asked me more than once or at least once. And I think I have given an answer.
The question is: today, we have done an investigation. What are the different parts to the system? There is the Police, there is AGC, we have given an accounting, there is the State Courts, which we will not expect an accounting from. That is something for the Chief Justice to deal with. I do not think anybody is suggesting any kind of bias.
There is full accounting – the key question Members have to ask is what was there before the Police and AGC? What was the information? And an accounting of the steps they have taken. And that shows prima facie that there was a good case to proceed. The case in accordance with the usual principles. And they did that. And the confirmations that have been given here about how the matter was dealt with. And that there was no influence-peddling or influence exerted.
An ombudsman would do what we would have done. The question is whether the ombudsman takes you further for good governance. And I am happy at some other point to deal with that issue and share examples from different countries how an ombudsman has worked or has not worked and how expectations are set very high and then they are not fulfilled.
The real point, Sir, is this. Whether we have a functioning Government with integrity and a civil service and a public service that acts with integrity, that is capable of being questioned here and outside, and is prepared to answer. And we have that. How is governance improved by having any other institution? So, those are the questions, but those are larger questions. I am dealing with a narrower question of what happened in this case in my Statement.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): I thank the Minister, for the Statement. I have two points of clarification for the Minister. First, the Minister has spoken about the evidence in this case in detail and also touched on the findings of further investigations. I would like to clarify with the Minister, is Ms Liyani, in fact, guilty.
The second question is, the case was originally seen as one involving a wealthy complainant, fixing their foreign domestic worker, but it seems now that the case is really about wealthy people who are cavalier in dealing with a foreign domestic worker who had, on her part, not exactly acted well as well. So, I would like to ask the Minister what is his view on this issue.
Mr K Shanmugam: I think it is a very stark question: is Ms Liyani guilty? She has been acquitted by the High Court. And I said that we must proceed on that basis and not reopen that issue. We leave it at that and I do not want to be commenting on the decision.
As to the word \"cavalier\", the description was not used by me. Again, on the conduct of the Liews, how you characterise it, I have put across the facts. I have given certain characterisations. I do not think I can usefully add further to those characterisations. But this is not rocket science and I think Members can draw their own conclusions as well based on the facts.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, I have two clarifications for the Minister.
First, Part 1 of his speech went through rather quickly and we were all trying to follow without the Annexes. So, I think it is important for him to clarify, at the risk of repeating himself, what exactly he is saying about the High Court judgment. The sense I am getting is that he is saying that if the High Court had known certain other information at the time, the High Court might have come to different conclusions. Is that what he is saying?
The second clarification is regarding the lapses in the Police investigation which he spoke about earlier. He mentioned that the five-week lapse from the time that the case was reported, to the time that the Police actually attended the scene and also the failure to seize the evidence. He said that there was some internal review done and the officer had said that he was very busy at the time and also he had some personal matter to attend to. However, I believe that during the trial, he actually gave a different reason and his reason was that he did not want to re-victimise the Liew family.
Speaking as a former Police officer, I find this is quite unusual in a theft case that an officer would consider this issue of re-victimisation. And of course, I accept the fact that LML did not exert pressure on the officers, but I am just wondering whether it crossed the Minister's mind that the officer himself may have felt that he was dealing with somebody who was very prominent and therefore he needed to take extra care. This is something that strikes me.
Mr K Shanmugam: On the first point about the High Court, what I said is that the High Court's decision is on the facts before it. It is both natural and understandable. I explained that we did not go about looking for any further evidence to question the High Court. It was the High Court's decision which required us to do further investigations specifically on the Liews and whether any criminal investigations had been committed.
So, in the course of the investigations, we came across further evidence. I am a Member of Parliament. I am here, I am making a Ministerial Statement. I have this information in my possession. So, I have to set it out in all good faith and honesty and transparency. And that is all that I am doing.
I am not, in any way, therefore suggesting that if this information was there before the High Court, it could have come to a different decision. And I do not want to be making those comments. I am not the High Court Judge and how can I say, \"Oh, if this information was there with him, he would have changed his mind.\" I can say to you this is the information there is. So, I am being very careful about how I have put it.
If Ms Sylvia Lim or any Members think that the High Court would have benefited from this information, that is your prerogative for you to think that. But I do not think I should be suggesting that.
You could have think otherwise too. You may think that it would have made no difference. So, we are just laying out the facts.
What is important for me is to show what the Police and AGC had and I am happy for Ms Sylvia Lim's confirmation that there was no expressed influence by LML or his family. So, the question is, was there some implicit thinking in the back of his mind? It is a question that has struck me. It is an obvious question. Did the officer, say, think to himself, \"This is such a big man, I had better do certain things.\" If that is the theory, let us look at his conduct. Why did he wait for five weeks then? Do we think that if he was so concerned, \"Hey, I better do this properly\", then would he have waited for five weeks?
Sir, I am not suggesting that this has been specifically the case, but I am saying to you, actually, the way the matter was handled, negative the suggestion of any implicit extra attention.
I think Ms Sylvia Lim may be collapsing two different points.
The five weeks – first of all, I want to emphasise over and over again. There is no excuse. It is a breach and it will be dealt with. Again, in good faith and honesty, I am just putting the facts across as an explanation rather than an excuse as to what happened.
The time taken to visit the scene is different from why he did not seize the items. As regard why he did not seize the items, I have given an explanation. The Police make a decision as to whether to seize or not to seize. It depends on the facts and the nature of the items and assessment. If a photograph is adequate, then the officer can decide that he will take a photograph. These are day-to-day using items. These items, they say there is prima facie. There is no reason to disbelieve. So, I take photographs and once I have taken the photographs, why do I need the physical items? So, that is what is meant by \"I did not want to re-victimise\".
But Ms Sylvia Lim may recall that I said, that we should have taken colour photographs, and the way the photographs were taken should have been clearer, item by item. So, those were procedural lapses. They should have taken each item and photographed them separately. Some of that was not done for the clothes.
And I will give another example why this has got to be a case-by-case thing. That was a one matter that came to me as a Member of Parliament. This was the alleged victims. They were in the trade – they deal with gold. The gold that they were dealing with was said to be the subject of fraud. And therefore, the Police, at that time, seized the entire amount of gold which was quite substantial and they were investigating the alleged fraudsters.
The people who claimed ownership of the gold – and I think there was no doubt that they are entitled to the gold – came to see me to say, \"Meanwhile the prices are oscillating, they are going up, they are going down and the Police are holding on to the gold. Can we not please be subjected to this?\" And it did go up, quite substantially. By the time it was released, it had gone down quite substantially.
So, these things happen. I think the Police approach, generally now, is to try not to seize, as far as possible, if you can get good identification of the items. But you got to assess on the case whether here do I need to seize or do I need to take a photograph.
The Police officer assessed that photographs were enough. But having assessed that, the quality of the photographs was not adequate and the way the photographs was taken was not adequate.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the hon Minister for Home Affairs and Law.
First, in relation to the investigation by the investigating officer or IO at Tanglin Police Division, I understand that it was classified as a routine theft case. I wonder whether given the factual complexities, as opposed to the legal complexities, the Police could approach this in a different way, in future, so that the necessary expertise may be borne onto the case.
Second, in relation to the fact that currently, we have a Legal Service Commission, which draws on both judicial officers as well as legal officers from the AGC, I wonder whether the Minister has any views on having a separate Judicial Service Commission. And that would serve two purposes. Firstly, to deepen the competence of judicial officers; and secondly, to enhance or entrench the view that the judicial system is separate and independent.
Mr K Shanmugam: I think the first point made by Mr Murali Pillai about having AGC, greater degree of legal expertise coming up at an early stage is a good one. And I know that that is how the private sector does it – you come in quickly, the lawyers come in, and aid and help the people who are doing the investigations. But I have given you some numbers just now, the thousands of cases that are handled. I think given the number, if you look at the Public Prosecutors we have available, if you look at the IOs we have available, to do that in an integrated way from the beginning, I think would be very challenging. I know Mr Murali Pillai says for a case that is complex. I think we will have to look at these possibilities and identify which case is complex; and sometimes, cases start out as simple and end up as complex. We will consider his suggestion.
On the second point that he has made about the Judicial Service Commission. Again, the answer is what I have given earlier. I have given a fairly long answer on how our service is structured, and where it is integrated and where it is separate. I think given the size and given the inherent limitations, that is probably the best model for the time being.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notice of Motion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Justice System","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I beg to move*,
\"That this House affirms that fairness,
access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system
and calls on the Government to recognise and remedy its shortcomings
in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of means or social status,
including facilitating a review of the justice system.\"
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Ms He Ting Ru. (proc text)]
Sir, the Workers' Party has filed this Motion in order to be assured of Parliament time to contribute to this important debate on justice. Though this Motion was triggered by Ms Parti Liyani's case, our contributions will not be limited to issues from that case, but will include broader issues surrounding the justice system.
We urge the Government to recognise that the current system, despite its strengths, does have shortcomings which need attention. We call on the Government to take a two-pronged approach.
The first prong would be to tackle the low-hanging fruit. In our opinion, some of the shortcomings can be addressed by the Executive Government directly, if it is willing to do so.
The second prong will be to commission an external review of the more complex matters concerning our justice system. These other matters involve other Organs of State and touch on constitutional matters. On these matters, we offer our perspective for consideration and suggest the setting up of a Constitutional Commission led by a Supreme Court Judge.
My speech and those of other Workers' Party's Members of Parliament or MPs will cover issues on both the low-hanging fruit as well as the more complex matters.
Before I go further, I should declare for the record that I am a lawyer at the firm that has been appointed to represent Ms Parti Liyani in her complaint against the Prosecutors under Legal Profession Act. That said, I am not personally involved in handling the matter. Furthermore, the Workers' Party is mindful that the disciplinary proceedings are pending. We will, therefore, not be touching on the conduct of the DPPs especially with regard to the DVD player.
Before I get to the issues with our justice system, let me set the context. Ms Parti Liyani's case has attracted significant public reaction and we need to ask why. Is it because Singaporeans enjoy the spectacle of powerful people being taken down, or are we energised by the triumph of a domestic worker against the odds?
Captivating as these themes are, the Workers' Party is more concerned about the issues that the case represents. How far does our system of justice put everyone on equal footing, whether CEO or domestic worker? Have there been domestic helpers, work permit holders and even poorer Singaporeans who believed that they were innocent but have pled guilty to charges because they did not know their rights or could not afford to fight their cases? If we are being honest, we should not ask whether there have been such persons but rather how many there have been.
The critical question that Ms Parti Liyani's case has raised is this: how do persons who are disadvantaged navigate the justice system? This is a critical question to ask, as Article 12 of the Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
The Government has often cited Singapore's high international rankings of our justice system and, indeed, we agree that it has significant strengths. In the 2020 Rule of Law Index compiled by the World Justice Project, Singapore ranks 12 out of 128 countries. The Minister emphasised Singapore's rankings earlier.
While the overall ranking over the eight factors assessed is commendable, we should note that Singapore is not ranked so well in a few factors and sub-factors. For instance, on the important factor of constraints on Government powers, Singapore scores have fallen every year from 2015 to 2020. Singapore is below average as well in two sub-factors here. Singapore was found to be below average in having effective checks by non-government entities such as media and civil society, and below average in having effective checks by Parliament.
Under the factor of open government, the Rule of Law Index ranks Singapore 28 out of 37 high-income countries on the question of whether there are effective complaint mechanisms for citizens. Singapore is also below average on civic participation which includes the protection of the freedoms of opinion and expression, assembly and association.
On the factor of criminal justice, the Singapore system has done very well in sub-factors such as the effectiveness of criminal investigation and being free of corruption. These are certainly vital. However, on the critical sub-factor of whether the criminal system is free of improper government influence, the Singapore system is ranked poorly among high-income countries at 30th out of 37th and globally at 47th. The picture for Singapore is thus more mixed than the overall ranking suggests.
Mr Speaker, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth, but to emphasise that there are many aspects in assessing a justice system. We do not take Singapore's achievements for granted. Singapore is a safe place to raise children and the justice system has been instrumental in achieving that. There are also many public-spirited professionals working in law enforcement, prosecutions and the Courts who take their mission seriously.
Over recent years, the Government has also taken some progressive steps in the right direction. These include introducing a statutory framework for disclosure of evidence before trial and enabling video recording of suspect statements in certain situations.
By filing this Motion, the Workers' Party is not saying that the system is broken or ineffective, but we believe we should strive to do even better. There is room for improvement in any system. We believe that more attention should be paid to certain shortcomings in fairness, access and independence which need to be addressed.
In this debate, several Workers' Party's MPs will speak. We will cover the plight of the poor and disadvantaged and offer suggestions on how fairness and access to justice could be improved. We will review the role, culture and practices of law enforcement agencies, the Courts and the Attorney-General's Chambers. We will examine whether there are any gaps in seeking recourse when things have gone wrong. We will also argue that enhancing the system in these areas is in the broader national interest.
Sir, for my part, I will speak on three main areas. First, the plight of the poor in obtaining justice; second, concerns relating to law enforcement agencies; and, third, justice for crime victims.
First, the plight of the poor in getting justice. Our criminal justice system inherited from the British is adversarial. It involves a contest between competing parties with the judge playing a relatively passive role of evaluating whether each side has satisfied its respective burdens of proof. This is unlike certain justice systems in Europe where judges play an active inquisitorial role and direct parties to investigate before judgments are made. Our adversarial system requires battle and resources count.
As a law student in the 1980s, I did empirical research on our system. I sat at the public gallery of the busiest Court handling crash criminal cases. The presiding judge handled several hundred cases valiantly with just a minute or two to decide on questions such as whether to grant bail and what amount of bail to set; whether to permit detention of the suspect for investigations and so on. Given the marketplace vibe of the Court, it would be easy to forget that each case involved the rights of persons enshrined in the Constitution. In the cases where the suspect had a lawyer, the Court was given more information to make its decision. Where the accused was unrepresented, the Court only had the Prosecution's arguments to go on, as the suspect often said nothing.
Today, we still see unrepresented accused persons in front of judges, facing a prosecutor who is state-funded and with deep resources. It is unclear what proportion of persons go through the criminal justice system unrepresented. These unrepresented persons do not know what to do when prosecutors submit bundles of legal authorities to persuade judges to convict or to fix a sentence. Because of their lack of legal knowledge, some of them inadvertently irritate judges because they say things which are not legally relevant or come across as disrespectful or even under-dressed.
Let me now touch on what I see are structural impediments facing the poor. In 2007, I filed a Parliamentary Question or PQ about the demographic profile of the prison inmate population. Although MHA declined to give certain information, it did provide the educational profile of the prison population when compared with the general population. It showed that in 2006, the percentage of the general population having Secondary education or less was 61%, but this was the profile of nearly 90% of the prison population. Conversely, the higher educated with more than Secondary education made up nearly 40% of the general population, but only 10% of the prison population.
As those with less education tend to have lower incomes, one can conclude that the proportion of poorer persons in prison is higher than in the general population. It is widely acknowledged that the poor tend to be over-represented in criminal cases globally. So, this phenomenon is not unique to Singapore. But why is it that the poor have more difficulties with the criminal law?
First, the poor are more likely to fall foul of the law because of their circumstances. As the French poet Anatole France famously put it in 1894, and I quote, \"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread\". I am not saying that the law was purposely enacted to favour the rich but the law does have unintended discriminatory effects on the poor.
Second, when someone is faced with an investigation, there are economic hurdles. Engaging counsel requires resources. There is some legal aid available, provided you satisfy a test of means and qualify for the schemes.
Another major concern is, how does one remain free while the case is pending? On this issue of pre-trial liberty, there has been some research done in Singapore. In a 2005 study by an Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court, she found that in 2004, out of all accused persons offered bail by the Subordinate Courts, only 42.7% were bailed out. In other words, the majority of persons considered suitable for release before trial remained locked up. Ms Parti Liyani was fortunate that the NGO Home helped her find a bailor, but many accused persons cannot find bailors of sufficient means.
If one is incarcerated, there is disruption to family income and education, and decreased job prospects. There is stigmatisation. The whole household is affected. It is also much harder to consult with any lawyer or witness to prepare one's defence.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Police and the Courts can release a suspect either on bail or on his personal bond, that is, on his own promise to attend Court. The majority of suspects are offered money bail and need to find a bailor. The law states that the amount of bail should be \"fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case as sufficient to secure the attendance of the person arrested or charged\".
The heavy reliance on money bail has disproportionate effects on the poor. I have come across residents living in HDB rental flats who had bail set at above $10,000 for numerous charges of non-violent, regulatory offences like parking and ERP violations. This may sound surprising, as many of us consider such offence notices as easily settled through prompt payment of composition fines. But this is not so for those who have insufficient means to pay and have to attend Court. The entire household can be derailed by such problems.
Still on the issue of bail, I filed a Parliamentary Question in 2008 on the Bail Court. A Bail Court had been established in 2007 with the aim of achieving consistency in bail decisions and, where possible, to reduce bail amounts, reduce time spent in remand and ensure that review applications were dealt with expeditiously. One year on, I asked what outcomes had been achieved. In his reply in 2008, the Minister said that the Bail Court had reduced or varied the terms of bail in 30% of the cases referred to it.
Today, it seems that the Bail Court is not heard of. Has it been discontinued and if so, why?
It also appears from past Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament, including myself, that statistics on bail are not readily tracked by the Government.
If poorer Singaporeans face significant hurdles, work permit holders such as Ms Parti Liyani face even more. Work permits can be cancelled any time at the discretion of employers or MOM. This puts tremendous pressure on work permit holders to cooperate with the authorities and their employers even when unreasonable and legally questionable demands are made.
For instance, in 2008, the Police investigated a case of sexual assault on a University student at Clementi Woods Park. In a questionable exercise of power, blood samples were taken from 200 foreign workers at nearby construction sites. When I filed the Parliamentary Question on the legal basis for such action, the Minister stated that it was permitted because, \"the workers had voluntarily given their consent.\"
I assumed the workers might have signed consent forms but what is the quality of that consent?
More importantly, what signal is being sent about institutional attitudes? Why did the Police not ask nearby homeowners to voluntarily give blood samples too? Just imagine if that had been done.
The disadvantage of the poor has to be juxtaposed with the formidable powers of the state. Law enforcement agencies are given wide powers of investigation. The defence does not have similar powers to seize evidence or to compel statements from witnesses. In recent judgments, the Court of Appeal has recognised the disadvantages faced by the defence. If we are not careful, the system could become oppressive for the poor and disadvantaged. My other colleagues will elaborate further.
Sir, please let me now make a few suggestions on redressing some of the pain points faced by the poor.
First, on composition fines. For less serious offences, paying a composition fine enables the offender to settle the matter quickly out of Court. If the composition fine is not paid by a deadline, the offender faces a higher penalty in Court.
Lately, I have noticed that some agencies have started issuing composition notices with two deadlines – one offering the usual composition amount and a second deadline offering a composition amount that is higher by about $20. This gives a second chance for composition before sending the case to Court. Some agencies now allow the offender to apply online to extend the payment deadline. All these are good moves which we support.
Nevertheless, with composition fines going up, it would be ideal if the agencies could consider allowing instalment payments of fines. Such instalments can be automatically tracked. The State Courts already has a successful auto-tracking system for instalment payment of Court fines, with AXS kiosks showing the due dates for instalments.
For composition fines, the options can be kept simple. For example, a maximum of three instalments with further action if default occurs. Such instalment payments will help poorer families cope and prevent cases from snowballing into bigger Court fines, defaults and warrants of arrest.
Next, pre-trial release and bail. I earlier touched on the difficulties of the poor in raising money bail. We need to understand the issue in more depth. I mentioned that the Government had given answers in the Parliament that it does not collate statistics on the proportion of persons offered bail who do get bailed out. There is a need to regularly collate and publish such statistics, and I ask the Government to do so.
In addition, there is already provision to release a person on his own bond. Could this provision be used more often? If a personal bond is deemed inadequate, alternatives to money bail should be actively considered. Some of the non-monetary methods could include requiring the accused to maintain employment, abide by restrictions on personal associations, residence or travel, to report regularly to a designated agency, comply with a curfew and so on.
To get the Police and the Courts to consider such options, the Government could consider amending the Criminal Procedure Code to explicitly require consideration of such non-monetary conditions.
That brings me to the end of my first point on the plight of the poor.
Let me move to my second point – concerns relating to law enforcement agencies.
In Singapore, whenever questions about criminal justice are raised, public surveys are cited about the high public confidence in law enforcement agencies. These are encouraging. I wonder, however, whether persons who have actually experienced the law enforcement process have been surveyed. It would be useful to know the satisfaction levels of crime victims, witnesses and suspects.
The Minister has shared the findings on the Police investigations into the Parti Liyani case, together with MHA's initial assessment of what needs to be done. I have some further suggestions on what could be done to raise the bar at law enforcement agencies.
First, decisions on charges. I hope that law enforcement agencies do not have a culture of preferring the most serious possible charge against accused persons to leave room for plea bargaining. If the accused person is unrepresented, there may well be no bargaining. This will increase the chances that unrepresented accused will receive harsh outcomes.
From my past experience, I also observed that some officers believe that showing moderation in the selection of charges might open them up to allegations of corruption. If such defensive behaviour exists today, it will lead to injustice. It must be strongly discouraged.
Second, recording of the accused's statements. As Ms Parti Liyani's case illustrates, problems can arise with interpretation of statements recorded in English. In the past few years, I have come across Chinese-educated residents facing police investigations. They told me that they did not have the competence to check the accuracy of statements recorded in English and had to rely on what the interpreter told them while trying to focus under very stressful circumstances. When I read their statements and asked them about the incriminating parts, they claimed that they did not utter those words. When asked why they signed the statements, they said they were unable to check the statements and wanted to complete the stressful process as soon as possible. Lawyers sometimes see statements with contents that contradict each other.
Sir, statements from suspects must be 100% accurate since a confession alone is enough to convict a person under our law, even if there is no other evidence. When statements are challenged in Court, public time and expenses are incurred. To save time and expense at the trial, law enforcement agencies should facilitate the recording of statements in the suspect's language of choice. In other words, the text of their statement should be written in the person's first language.
I appreciate that this will involve more administrative effort but the statements will be more reliable. At the very least, I suggest that the recording of statements should be facilitated in our other official languages of Malay, Chinese and Tamil.
In addition, the use of video recording or audio recording of statements should be expanded to more cases than the current practice of using them for serious sexual crime only and other limited cases. Such recordings would significantly strengthen the process.
Third, law enforcement training. It would be useful to know how much attention is paid to training officers in the skills required to be fair and seen to be fair. To be an agency accepted by persons of all cultures and socio-economic classes, law enforcement officers need to understand multi-culturalism and guard against inadvertent discrimination. Are officers sensitised to ensure that they are seen to treat the rich and poor equally?
The final point I would make on law enforcement is on the oversight of law enforcement investigations. The Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC may be consulted from time to time during an investigation, as the Minister described earlier. The AGC is thus an important check on investigation standards. In cases where the prosecution's case collapses or is found wanting, it would not be fair to place blame exclusively on the law enforcement agencies. As far as Ms Parti Liyani's case is concerned, I hope that the police investigator does not become a convenient scape-goat to pin all the case's shortcomings on.
That brings me to the end of my second point concerning law enforcement agencies.
Now, let me move to my third area – justice for crime victims.
This was not an issue in Ms Parti Liyani's case. Nevertheless, the issue of justice for crime victims should be highlighted in any review of the system as crime victims are stakeholders that tend to be sidelined. Let me explain.
I have spoken on the issue of justice for crime victims in this House over the years, so let me briefly recap. Though one of the aims of criminal justice is to pursue justice for victims, the reality is that crime victims have no say in how criminal cases are conducted. Criminal prosecutions are decided by the public prosecutor or PP, who is the AG. Thus, for instance, the PP will decide which charge to prefer against the offender and may even decide not to press charges at all. There is nothing the victim can do to stop that.
Victims may even suffer damage by the criminal justice process, such as if they are disbelieved by law enforcement or subject to ridicule by lawyers during cross-examination in Court. This additional damage inflicted by the system on victims is called secondary victimisation.
Sir, the international community has increasingly recognised that crime victims have rights and needs. Thirty-five years ago, in 1985, the United Nations General Assembly issued a Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. In the Declaration, governments were urged to ensure that crime victims were informed of their role and the progress of their cases, that their views be considered at appropriate stages of the case, that they overall be treated fairly and that there be appropriate mechanisms for them to obtain compensation in criminal cases. Countries such as the UK, New Zealand and Australia have legislation protecting the rights of victims as they go through the criminal justice system. Japan is an active contributor to the field of victimology.
To be fair, there has been some limited progress in Singapore in justice for crime victims. For many years, the Police have presented victim impact statements in Court to enable judges to hear from victims before sentence is passed on offenders. However, I believe this is limited to a small category of offences such as sexual crimes. Our laws have also been amended to require judges to consider making compensation orders at the sentencing stage, recognising that the victims may have suffered loss and expense.
However, I believe more needs to be done to give crime victims confidence that they will be fairly treated by the system.
When victims report cases to agencies, they need to incur time, expense and emotional stress, but they report, expecting that somehow, justice will come out of it. Unfortunately, some were shocked and disappointed at how their cases ended up. Let me cite two recent examples I came across.
In one case, a resident was knocked down by a car while crossing the road at a junction with the green man sign in her favour. This would have meant that the driver must have violated some traffic signal. The incident was reported to the Police and she and her family assisted in investigations. Today, she continues to suffer from the incident not just physically but by having flashbacks and post-traumatic stress disorder.
After investigations were concluded, she was shocked to receive a letter from the Police telling her that the driver had been charged with careless driving. The family was also told that he had been fined $2,000 and suspended from driving for a few months. Her husband saw me and asked why the charge was so light and what they could do about it.
In a separate case, a lady contacted me to share her experience when she reported an offence of rape. She said that she decided to report it after much pain as she had spent some weeks dealing with the trauma of the incident as well as having an abortion. After Police investigations, she received a curt letter stating that the Police had consulted the Attorney-General's Chambers and decided that no further action would be taken and the case would be closed.
She felt shattered that the system had failed her. When she wrote to me recently, she mentioned that no reason had been given to her for closing the case and put this question, \"Am I not allowed to ask?\"
Sir, we accept that the state has to take charge of criminal cases to ensure consistency and fairness to accused persons. However, the system would not be able to function if victims do not come forward to assist in criminal cases. We need to remember that crime victims deserve justice and deserve to be treated with respect. We should review our justice system from the crime victims' perspective and see how it can be improved using the UN's Declaration as a guide.
Sir, I have concluded the third key point of my speech. My colleagues will cover other areas relating to the Courts, the Attorney-General's Chambers, access to justice, complaint mechanisms and why enhancements to justice are in the national interest.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have not finished.
Mr Speaker: Oh, you have not finished. Sounded like you had.
Ms Sylvia Lim: I still have time, right?
Mr Speaker: You do, you do.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. So, Sir, what is the Workers' Party calling for? Let me reiterate the two-pronged approach we hope will be feasible to tackle the issues with we are raising in this debate.
In the areas that are within the Government's sole jurisdiction, the Government should objectively assess whether there is validity in our concerns and suggestions and, if so, take action. From my speech, these low-hanging fruit include composition fines, real reform, various law enforcement practices, such as statement-recording and training and the position of crime victims.
There are other areas which are more complex and touch on constitutional matters. From my speech, these more complex methods include whether the equal protection of the law under the Constitution is in practice being afforded to the poor and whether there are institutional cultures or subcultures that inadvertently discriminate between the rich and poor.
For such issues, we suggest the setting up of a Constitutional Commission headed by a Supreme Court Judge. The Commission should include members with expertise in criminology or sociology and strong personal experience working with the poor. Other matters to be reviewed by the Government or by the Constitutional Commission will be elaborated on by my other Party colleagues.
Sir, let me conclude. Mr Speaker, all of us in this House have come across cases of residents struggling with life. We have seen how legal troubles can derail families who do not have the resources to withstand such trials and tribulations.
Today's Motion is not about tearing down the system or discouraging those who work in law enforcement, the AGC or the Courts. Far from it.
It is about a desire to raise the system to the next level. It is about plugging gaps to give everyone the confidence that the system will work for everyone, from CEO to the poor and disadvantaged. Singapore regularly aims for excellence in its endeavours. We should aim for an excellent justice system too, one that works for everyone, regardless of means or social status. In this spirit, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang)(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I am very honoured to be here to support my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim in passing this, in proposing this Motion. The title of this Motion is \"That this House affirms that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system\" and this is a very key goal of our legal system. What we hope to have is one where everyone must have access to justice and there must be four key points, pillars to this.
First of all, that the police must investigate based on procedures to the AGC. AG must also look into the case.
Third, the Court, the justices must also establish standards in how evidence should be looked into.
Fourth, the defendant's lawyers have also got a role to play so that we are not just listening to one side of the story.
This is a very important channel to ensure that we have a better outcome.
If these four pillars are operating efficiently at the same time, then our justice system can achieve what it sets out to achieve.
Can we allow this access to justice to be enjoyed by everyone?
It really depends on the pillars themselves. How strong the pillars are? The larger the building is, the heavier the building is, the more that the stronger these pillars should be.
In recent years, the acquittal judgment that was passed in Liyani's case has already pointed out the need for us to strengthen the pillars only through a very sound legal system.
Can we ensure that the innocent can also enjoy good justice?
Just as my colleague Ms Sylvia, Lim has said, Singapore's justice system within this country and also outside of Singapore enjoys good reputation. This is the result of our justices, our officers, legal officers and other participants, all the good work that they have done in enhancing and upholding our legal system. We have no reason to brush aside the good work that they have done all this while.
Workers' Party is also not insinuating that the legal system is not doing what it is out to do.
However, we insist that we must ensure that the justice system must be able to operate in a manner without where no one can face any obstacles today. We must ensure that what we do today will allow the next Liyani to be able to subscribe to justice. In Singapore this is very important. Without any legal representation – if our country faces any obstacles for the vulnerable, especially those without the resources to find our own legal representation, without any knowledge of the legal system, then when they are charged, they will become very nervous and they will just own up to all the charges put across to them and what is worse is that even if they have the ability to seek justice, then simply because they were not allowed, they do not have the ability to pay for the bill, therefore their are case is delayed and, therefore, they are discriminated by their own friends and family.
Defence lawyers also face a very unequal system against them. In contrast to the Prosecutors, these defence lawyers have no right to hold onto the evidence or to force certain witnesses to give their evidence.
Only by having a more equal system, can we have a better outcome? Allowing Singapore's legal system to be able to protect the poor and vulnerable so that the legal system will not just be riding on the backs of the poor and the vulnerable.
So, what we are suggesting here includes the investigative procedures of the Police to make it better, including the power of the AG and AGC to raise charges.
Third, Sylvia Lim also mentioned about the possibility of paying fines and instalment and for bill, to allow the accused to also be able to adopt the other official languages of Singapore, Malay, Tamil and Chinese to offer their own written statement.
All these procedures and measures will ensure that the victim will also, even though they are vulnerable to also have access to justice under our current system.
During this course of matter, we also need to ensure that the entire legal system is more equal.
We must ensure that enforcement side have the right to do what they need to do to ensure that the victims or rather those who — the perpetrators do not escape justice.
At the same time, we must be honest with ourselves and review ourselves. Living in this society, do we feel unease? Are we willing to accept that this justice system will not make any mistakes. But at the same time we also meet to calibrate very carefully and balance it to make sure that the perpetrators do not escape justice. We must know that if our justice building is built too narrowly or if the the threshold is too high, then not enough people can squeeze into the building or be able to enter the building.
Just as equality must be the principles, the pillars and foundational pillars of the founding of Singapore society, these are the cornerstones of Singapore. We must continue to strengthen these four pillars of our legal system and continue to strengthen and expand this legal system to ensure that more people can be covered and protected by our system. Only when everyone can access to justice and when all the public can see that they can enjoy such justice and that the justice system can be enjoyed fairly by everyone. Then this country can really build our democracy. In English.
(In English): As I have mentioned earlier, one of the pillars, the house of justice, represents defence counsel who represent persons who are accused of crimes. These lawyers are there to ensure that the accused persons are aware of their rights and obligations under the criminal justice system and act as their advocates and their cases before the judiciary.
Given the crucial role of defence counsel, it is disquieting to see that a significant proportion of accused persons still appear before the Courts unrepresented, with approximately 40% of accused persons who claimed trial appearing unrepresented at the State Courts during pretrial stages. It is possible that this figure is significantly higher, if you include accused persons who plead guilty.
Studies, some conducted within the Singapore system, have also shown that unrepresented persons have a significantly greater chance of being convicted and are also more likely to receive more severe sentences upon conviction, raising the risk of miscarriages of justice occurring.
As a concrete example, what would be the chances that Parti Liyani or Portela Vilma Jimenez would have secured acquittal upon appeal if they had not been represented by a defence lawyer?
Some of the more common reasons for accused persons appearing unrepresented include lack of funds and also awareness. Many of us are familiar with residents stating that they can either not afford a lawyer or that they do not know where to begin to find one for themselves.
One of the ways in which we should improve access to justice for all will be to enhance existing legal aid. The right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice is a fundamental liberty found in Article 9(3) of our Constitution. Can we be said to be taking this right seriously if a significant number of individuals who face criminal proceedings are unrepresented?
Presently, only those charge with capital offences are guaranteed to have legal counsel appointed in the form of the Legal Aid Scheme for Capital Offences if they do not have means to engage their own lawyers. There is no means test to pass or eligibility criteria to satisfy and the scheme applies to all accused persons, regardless of nationality.
For non-capital offences, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS administered by the Law Society of Singapore and also funded by the MinLaw provides accused persons with a disposable income of not more than $10,000 per annum and disposable capital of not more than $10,000 may be granted legal aid, subject to an additional merits test. Foreigners too can apply for the scheme.
Finally, the ad hoc pro bono referral scheme administered by the Law Society of Singapore offers legal representation for persons of exceptional circumstances who do not meet the criteria for existing legal aid schemes, but nonetheless are in urgent need and may apply for it.
Yet, it appears that the schemes are still limited in their reach, as can be seen by the large number of underrepresented persons and such pro bono legal representation still largely relies on the goodwill of lawyers.
Additionally, the rights to be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice in Article 9(3) of our Constitution has been qualified by case law, such as Jasbir Singh, a 1994 case of the Court of Appeal that an arrested person is only entitled to consult defence counsel a reasonable time after arrest. The consequences of this is that accused persons can be held without access to counsel when police investigations are on-going.
This is contrasted against other countries, such as New Zealand and Denmark. In New Zealand, legal aid is available to persons arrested and detained on criminal charges, persons charged with a criminal offence and persons imprisoned on criminal charges. The state is also obliged to provide legal aid to persons with intellectual and mental disabilities, persons who face a potential prison sentence of six months or more, and persons who meet a financial threshold. The legal aid scheme also does not have a set income level in determining the means test but instead adopts a flexible approach by considering various factors, such as a person's gross income for the past 12 months, together with their disposable capital.
In Denmark, the police have a duty to guide an accused person on their option to have defence counsel appointed when provisionally charged in a criminal case. And in a number of cases, the courts may appoint a public defence counsel for the accused person. As a general rule, defence counsel must be appointed in all criminal cases, unless the case is minor. And the cost of appointing public defence counsel is initially paid out of public funds, with such costs to be recovered only upon conviction.
Given all these, perhaps it is now time for us to enact the provisions of the original Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance which were first introduced after David Marshall in 1955 called for a statutory requirement for the provision of legal aid, including criminal matters, to the indigent, for everyone in Singapore to have equal access to the justice system rather than rely on having these resources provided on a voluntary basis by the profession.
Apart from that, the review we are calling for should also consider automatically providing legal aid to certain groups, such as to all individuals charged with serious non-capital offences carrying long-term imprisonment sentences and do not qualify for CLAS or, in the case of Canada, where legal aid is mandatory for all youth offenders. The review should also look into how we can ensure that vulnerable segments of society are informed of their rights and where to seek legal aid. It should also look into considering amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and whether there should be a fixed time within which an accused person will be permitted access to a lawyer.
Finally, on this topic, I am happy that the Law Minister stated that we are seriously considering setting up a publicly-funded Public Defender's Office for all criminal matters which takes on defence counsel work for accused persons throughout a criminal matter. We can explore having a system of rostering state-funded police station or Court duty lawyers, enabling a person arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence to consult with a lawyer after arrest or allow an accused person to be represented by a lawyer at a Court on their first appearance if they have not or have not been able to contact their lawyer.
The final topic I would like to speak on today will be in relation to the statutory compensation for miscarriages of justice. The Member for Aljunied has already spoken about compensation for victims of crimes. However, I believe the review we are calling for should also look into whether there is scope to bolster the current compensation scheme that we have for accused persons who have been acquitted. Currently, section 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for the acquitted person to be compensated a sum not exceeding $10,000, provided that the Court is satisfied that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious. This qualifier does not account for how an accused person still suffers emotionally from having to go through a trial where they stand accused of a crime and that they may also suffer financial losses or loss of income while the charge is hanging over their heads, even if the prosecution was taking it up in good faith.
Genuine mistakes do happen and, given that cases can last a long time, such as the case of Chibuike being a recent one where the accused was in remand for nine long years after his arrest for drug trafficking. This contrasts against schemes in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom where section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 states that \"The state shall pay compensation for the miscarriage of justice to the person who has been convicted, suffered punishment and subsequently had his conviction reserved or pardoned on the ground of a newly-discovered fact that shows that there was a miscarriage of justice.\" The legislation is very specific about the circumstances which make such persons eligible for compensation, and the amount of compensation depends on the seriousness of the offence of which the person was convicted or accused, the severity of the punishment suffered, the conduct of investigation and prosecution of the offence and any other convictions of that person.
I realise that this is a complex issue which requires a balance in ensuring that genuine victims of miscarriages of justice are compensated against being so generous as to possibly introduce a chill factor in carrying out prosecutions that may hamper the efficient administration of justice for crimes committed. However, note that, in the UK, there were only 14 successful cases between 2010 and 2013 out of a total of 398 applications. Be that as it may, serious consideration of our existing scheme is still warranted to ensure that wrongly convicted persons may be adequately compensated in what is, after all, a serious deprivation both financially and to their personal liberty.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, while the house of justice and its four pillars may be strong today, it does not mean we stop looking for ways to continually strengthen each pillar to ensure that the house remains strong and able to provide shelter to all despite any storms or subsidence that may batter away at it. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I see Members looked hopeful when I got to my feet. I just wish to inform Members that I will be moving for us to continue past the moment of interruption.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Justice System","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the High Court ruled that the Liew family may have ulterior motives, and wrongly accused their former maid Liyani of stealing. This case lasted for 4 years, going through all sorts of twists and turns which include the police's handling of the stolen items, the DVD player presented by the prosecutors as evidence in court, and the State Court judge choosing to believe in Carl Liew and convict Ms Liyani.
All these have aroused a strong sense of justice among many Singaporeans. In their eyes, this is a clash between the rich and the poor. The rich and famous use their power and the judicial system to take advantage of a vulnerable maid, and the judicial system did not seem to have treated her fairly.
To be honest, I felt the same way when I learned of the High Court's ruling. I am not a lawyer myself. So, from the perspective of the general public, I can totally imagine that the ordinary citizens would cheer silently for Liyani’s acquittal and getting her freedom back. On the other hand, people also started to have suspicions, frustrations, and even resistance towards celebrities and our legal system.
Therefore, I welcome the statement just made by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law. The Minister made several important clarifications. First, as for the police, the Minister was of the view that the police did commit a lapse in handling the exhibits. Second, in response to the handling of the DVD player by the prosecutors, AGC has also initiated relevant legal and disciplinary proceedings. It is not appropriate for the Minister to make further comments. But the point is that due process is being carried out progressively. Third, as for Carl Liew, we learnt from the Ministerial Statement that the authorities have also started further investigations on him.
At the same time, after further reflection on the case, I begin to understand that precisely because the case has drawn much public attention, we must be more vigilant, and avoid falling into the trap of \"knocking off everyone in the boat with one pole\".
When \"one bamboo pole knocks off everyone in the boat\", It is not only the boat that is overturned, but also the people on board the boat.
So, let me first talk about the boat, then talk about the people in the boat. The so-called \"boat\" is our country's current legal system. The Liyani case reflected several core issues in the system. The first question is: does the system work in favour of the rich and powerful?
Let us look at a few examples. In 2019, Tay May Li, daughter of the Hour Glass founder, was sentenced to 22 months in jail, for careless driving, drug abuse and possession of drugs.
In 2017, Howard Shaw, grandson of movie mogul Shaw Runme, was sentenced to 8 weeks in prison, revocation of all classes of driving licence for 8 years for drink driving. Earlier in 2012, He was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment for child prostitution.
Huang Guang Tian, the son of a shipping tycoon, was charged with 19 counts of drug abuse, fraud and theft and was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
These cases show that our legal system, from the police investigation, prosecution, to sentencing, does not favour the rich and famous.
The second core issue reflected in the case is: is the judicial system fair to the disadvantaged?
According to figures in the Ministerial Statement, in 2016, 245 foreign domestic workers were arrested for theft, about 0.1% of all domestic workers in Singapore. Of the 245 foreign domestic workers arrested by the police, 188, or nearly 80 per cent, were not charged. In 2016, there was even an employer who was sentenced to 7 weeks in prison for making false report by wrongly accusing his maid of stealing.
Therefore, I feel the claim that the vulnerable group is disadvantaged in the overall judicial system because of their limited resources, or that the system treats people differently based on their social status, does not hold water.
Volunteers in Jurong told me a case that happened a few years ago. I was quite impressed. The resident involved was a former drug offender. He was caught by the police one day for possessing sleeping pills and was charged with possession of prohibited drugs. The fact is, however, he was depressed because his mother just passed away, and he went to see a doctor for his depression and got a legitimate prescription from the doctor. But the doctor happened to have retired and migrated overseas. He could not find the doctor to prove his innocence and was about to plead guilty. When the volunteers and Members of Parliament in Jurong learned about it, they assisted him to engage a lawyer, and called the doctor back as a witness. He was found innocent and justice prevailed.
Therefore, our judicial system as a whole is fair, just and equal. But this is a never-ending journey. In some ways, there is certainly room for improvement, but we should not overlook the overall fairness and equality of the system. One bamboo pole should not knock off everyone in the boat.
Justice and equality are the key words in our National Pledge, and also the basic principles of our judicial system. They are the foundation of our country, and are our original intentions of nation building. In other words, the boat, at the highest level, represents the systems in our country and society. It can also be said that justice and equality, as mentioned in the Motion, go above the political divide. They cannot be discussed along political lines, because they are core concepts that must be acknowledged by the whole Parliament.
Mr Speaker, after talking about the boat, let me talk about the people. There are many heroes and men of outstanding in the system. They perform their jobs dutifully and serve us, navigating the ship. So I hope to see more public recognition and support for our law enforcement and judicial officers regarding this case. As pointed out by the Minister in his statement, there were lapses on the police when handling the evidence this time. In fact, it has to do with manpower and workload. In other words, this is not a question of professional conduct. It is a matter of manpower and workload. To improve the system, we must first identify the root of the problem, beware of the daily challenges faced by law enforcement and judicial officers, and assist them in their tasks as far as possible.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Justice Bao was famous for his impartiality and selflessness. In his famous Kaifeng Court, he also had four important officers to help him execute his work: Wang Chao, Ma Han, Zhang Long, Zhao Hu, and the resourceful Gongsun Ce and a capable guard Zhan Zhao.
Take a look at our own “Kaifeng Court”. In our system, we also have many people like Gongsun Ce, Zhan Zhao, Wang Chao and Ma Han. They are our policemen, prosecutors, law enforcement and judicial officers. The more sensational a case is, the more we can see the conduct of some officers, and the more we should remain objective, and cheer for the integrity of our officers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, our judicial system is sound. Otherwise, we will not be one of the safest countries in the world. However, there is always room for improvement. We can agree with that. Even the famous Justice Bao made some mistakes, as in the Bodyguard Liu Xiaoyuan case.
Whether it is a prince or an ordinary citizen, all are treated alike. It was under this spirit that Justice Bao upheld justice for the people. Similarly, our legal system also safeguards the safety and rights of all Singaporeans regardless of their status and wealth.
According to legends, when people wanted to seek redress from Justice Bao, they could stop him on the road, or drum up their grievances. But in our country, we have proper channels such as legal aid for civil cases and criminal cases, and the Yellow Ribbon Project to help former convicts to reintegrate into society.
After this case, I am sure the authorities will learn from this painful experience and draw lessons from it. With a solid foundation in the judicial system, the authorities will strive for excellence to serve the country and the people better, and allow justice to prevail.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, while I do not agree with all the points made by my colleagues from the Workers' Party, I do support the spirit of the Motion. I agree that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's legal system and that the Government should continue its efforts to build a fair and just society. The legal system should not discriminate based on race, language, religion or economic status. I think these principles are universal.
These are, of course, not the only principles that one has to bear in mind when considering a criminal justice system. To these, I would add that the chief purposes of a criminal justice system are also to keep a country safe and keep the crime rate down. People should not live their lives in fear for personal safety or being victims of crime. A criminal justice system should have measures in place to prevent recidivism or re-committal of offences as well as processes in place to help reform those who are convicted.
The challenge in designing a criminal legal system, of course, is that one has to carefully evaluate the effects of any proposed changes on these different principles. Singapore's crime rate is one of the lowest in the world and this is despite the fact that we are sitting close to the \"golden triangle\" for the drug trade. Generally, anyone can go out late at night in most parts of Singapore without being worried about personal safety. Many people leave doors unlocked without worrying about break-ins. While many of us take this for granted, this personal safety we feel is really the result of a well controlled crime situation.
Our rate of recidivism is also low, especially for those whose crimes are not drug-related. Like many other countries, for those with drug-related crimes, there is a higher likelihood of recidivism and of committing other crimes. This is why keeping the drug situation under control is of vital importance and why we have always supported the toughest measures against drug traffickers.
Our criminal justice system is also not one set in stone. It is one that has evolved over time. The only point in which I think I depart a little from my friends is I do not think you need a grand Constitutional Commission to reform criminal law. Constitutional Commissions are usually to change the Constitution and I do not see any proposals to change the Constitution specifically as yet.
But criminal law reform, I think, is part of the natural process of developing our system. I will give some examples of how the criminal law has evolved through the natural process of criminal law reforms.
Given the tough penalties we have for offences, I think it is important that accused persons must have a fair hearing process and they should not be unnecessarily detained. This too is a journey that has taken place over the years and more and more rights and liberties have been given to accused persons.
Some examples. In 2010, there was a major reform of the criminal law. The prosecution before this was not required to share details of the case or Police statements with the accused before the trial. This was because it was believed that if the accused was innocent, his story should be consistent at all times and if he tells a different story at the trial, the statement to the Police could be brought up to contradict his account. This was the reasoning for why the system was the way it was before that.
However, from the lawyers' perspective, this appeared to be unfair because the defence counsel would be operating without knowing what the prosecution had up its sleeve and needed to get their clients to try and recount what had happened and what they had told the Police. Where there were inconsistencies that emerged at trial while the accused was being cross-examined, the defendant's lawyers would not be able to take instructions for the reasons for this and whether there was any other explanation for the inconsistency other than, of course, the accused lying.
The criminal disclosure requirements that were amended in 2010 required the prosecution to disclose a summary of their case, a list of exhibits the witnesses would rely on, including Police statements prior to the hearing. The defence would do likewise. There was an exchange of information. In this way, it was somewhat analogous to the process that have been in place for a long time for civil cases. As a final step, the prosecution would share the remaining Police statements of the accused and copies of documentary exhibits. This allowed both the prosecution and defence counsel to anticipate matters and better reduce the drama in Court.
In 2018, following further amendments, the list of offences covered by these procedures were broadened to include offences under the Moneylenders Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The 2010 reforms also provided for victim compensation because victims are also an important part of the criminal process. In the past, criminal law was largely about convicting those accused of crimes and victims were witnesses in the process. If they wanted personal relief, they may need to commence separate civil proceedings.
The Courts always had a discretionary power to order compensation for victims but victims did not have a right to insist on this. The 2010 reforms required the Courts to consider victim compensation in all cases. Victims were empowered to take part. If the Court chose not to grant compensation, it had to give reasons for doing so. This mechanism gave victims a right of compensation, which would save them the cost and emotional energy of a second trial process if they were satisfied with the compensation.
Another feature of the 2010 reforms – and this goes to how our legal system looks at rehabilitation – is community-based sentences were expanded. Prior to this, accused persons had limited alternatives to prison like home detention and probation. In 2010, a wide range of alternatives was introduced, including short detention orders, day reporting orders, mandatory treatment orders, community service orders and community work orders. What this allowed is it gave the Courts a broader flexibility to give sentences that were more proportional for less serious or less culpable offenders. This too was enhanced by further reforms in 2018.
A wide range of other reforms that have taken place over the years included safeguards for minors and victims of sexual offences and for accused persons in death penalty cases.
In 2018, another significant step was the introduction of video recording of interviews because what took place when police statements were recorded started becoming more contentious as these were challenged in trial. The video recording of interviews was also a helpful step in resolving these concerns because judges would also be able to observe the demeanour and behaviour of the accused.
In 2013, the Appropriate Adult Scheme was piloted for suspects with autism spectrum disorder, mental health conditions and intellectual disabilities. This was for vulnerable accused persons or suspects. This scheme proved to be useful and was made permanent in 2015. In 2017, this was expanded to include all young suspects under the age of 16.
These are all additional safeguards that have been put in place as our legal system evolves. This represents our commitment to ensuring that the legal system continues to be one that is fair and just.
A second aspect of this that is of course important and it is access to justice. In the earlier speech, Minister K Shanmugam made clear that we have a very large number of accused persons. I think 66,000 was the number every year – I mean, people who are accused of crime. These are all in the reports. Clearly, it is not feasible for the state to fund immediate legal representation for everyone. However, for serious offences, I agree it is important for people to have proper representation.
There are several schemes in place that do this already. The Supreme Court's Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, or LASCO, provides everyone accused of capital crimes with legal representation. There are of course a series of different aid schemes as well which I think the Minister mentioned. This includes the Law Society's Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. All of these are basically cooperative schemes led by the bar but with the Government's support as well.
If resources permit, and as was clear from the question I raised earlier, it would be helpful if more people are given access to legal counsel and possibly at an earlier stage. I do not have a straightforward answer to this because of the difficult question of how we are going to have adequate resources but I do support a public defender's office because this would at least institutionalise a group of lawyers who would be there to defend victims who need earlier access to lawyers.
If I were to look at many of these specific suggestions that my friends made, I think many of them are worth considering.
If I were to look at many of the specific suggestions that my friends made, I think many of them are worth considering. The plight of the poor, improvements in the law enforcement agencies process and more justice for victims of crime. There are many good suggestions here which can be taken into account as we evolve the criminal justice system and as part of the normal review process.
To sum up, Speaker, I agree that fairness, access and independence should be cornerstones of Singapore's legal system and the Government should continue its efforts to build a fair and just society. I do not think the Government should ever rest on its laurels. I think principled and systemic reform should continue as it always has over the years.
I support the spirit of the Motion. I do not think we need a Constitutional Committee for this but, of course, this is early in the debate, so my mind is not closed. But I also think it is important for us to acknowledge the good work that has been done so far. I would like to record my thanks to everyone involved in keeping our criminal justice system working, including the Police, the Prosecutors, the defence counsels, the Courts, the Prison Services and the many organisations and volunteers working to assist the process of crime prevention, victim support and rehabilitation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start, I would like to declare that I am a lawyer in private practice.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Justice, in his speech, at the Opening of the Legal Year in 2020, suggested three principles ought to guide the redesign of our justice system.
The first of the principles he spoke of was the principle of accessibility which he said and I quote, \"should be understood in terms of closing the justice gap, which is a metaphor for the problem of unequal access to justice.\"
He said that there are three dimensions to this justice gap. One, a physical gap, that is to say the physical distance between an individual and the institutions of justice. Two, a resources gap which deters the individual from seeking legal recourse due to concerns over cost. Three, a literacy gap which follows from lack of awareness about one's legal rights and remedies. He said that the justice system that seeks to minimise the level of injustice in society must necessarily be interested in closing each of these gaps, thereby enhancing and equalising access to justice.
The issue of resources gap has been much talk about and is a continuing work in progress. Despite recent Government efforts to increase access for civil legal aid to the Legal Aid Bureau, many still do not qualify despite the exemplary efforts of many volunteer lawyers under the CLAS scheme and the Law Society pro bono schemes. Beyond the rendering of pro bono advice, many still cannot find someone to represent them in legal proceedings on pro bono basis or the quoted fees of other lawyers may be unaffordable. My colleague the hon Ms He Ting Ru has already touched on this point too.
The Chief Justice did not elaborate on the term physical gap. How an average Singaporean thinks of our Judges is important. He or she must of course be learned in law and also in the area of specialisation that he or she is known for. Beyond pure commercial law and particularly in areas like criminal and family law, the ability of Judges to understand and empathise with the different challenges faced by litigants of different socio-economic backgrounds is critical and can, in my view, bridge this physical gap.
For the next part next part of my speech, I will be talking about Judges selection and training in the State Courts.
The hon High Court Judge reviewing Parti Liyani's appeal found that the trial Judge in the State Courts was wrong in applying the legal and evidential burdens of proof. The case generated much attention. While in the interest of justice, it was right and good that the High Court has allowed the appeal in favour of Ms Parti Liyani. We cannot always merely rely on appeals to High Court, righting a wrong done in the Lower Court.
To this end, we should strive for even higher standards in all our Courts and, in particular, in the context of the State Court Judges and Magistrates as they are, after all, critical gatekeepers of justice. They need to be carefully chosen, have a strong and right sense of mission and have the training and disposition to carry the torch of justice for those whose lives have been entrusted to them.
On the issue of selection, the issue of age and maturity of our judicial officers in the State Courts, has been raised in this House on at least two occasions.
In 2010, during the debate for the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, my colleague the hon Ms Sylvia Lim, had asked that then Senior Minister of State of Law Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, about requirement that in order for a person to be appointed as a Magistrate, one need only have held a relevant law degree for one year. At that time, the powers of Magistrate, including power sentencing has already increased over the years. Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee had, some years before, expressed similar concern about whether young Deputy Registrar and Magistrate could be able to dispense justice and apply the law appropriately without, and I quote the former Senior Minister of State, \"The wisdom that comes from experience in dealing with matters of the world.\"
Having to defend the policy, in reply to the issues raised by Ms Sylvia Lim, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee sought to assure the House that despite the low minimum requirements, the practice was to appoint judicial officers who exceeded the minimum threshold of one year.
In a current version of section 10 of the State Courts Act, there is now the provision at section 10(2) requiring a Magistrate to be a qualified person for not less than three years. However a person can still be a point under section 10(3) if the Chief Justice deems that he is suitable for the appointment even though he has been qualified for between one and three years.
Notwithstanding previous assurances that past appointments have been made for persons who have exceeded the minimum threshold, is it now the time to review the minimum requirement of one or even three years under section 10? Would it be prudent now to stipulate higher minimum seniority requirements for judicial officers, especially those handling criminal cases as Magistrates and District Judges? Perhaps, to have someone more senior like eight to 10 years of post-qualification experience.
In my view, it is extremely important to convince the public that Judges understand the lives of ordinary people and people of different stratas of society. How should we work towards that? While I am not advocating that we re-introduce the system of jury here, we must understand why some countries continue to cling onto their jury systems – because it is of fundamental importance to them that decisions on life and liberty are made by juries, composed of members of the public from a cross-section of the population.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of whether to have a separate dedicated Judicial Service in the State Courts have been raised in the past and more recently in wake of Ms Parti Liyani's case. Currently, the Legal Service Commission chooses legal officers will be posted from the Ministries or the AGC into the State Court Judiciary and then out again.
In 2014, the Prime Minister did announce the system of greater specialisation among legal officers so that at the middle ranks, officers can be posted either the legal or judicial branches and remain there for some years to hone their experience. While this is a positive move, it still leaves the more junior officers open to posting in and out judicial branch. The posting could also be to and from postings of DPP or Senior DPP.
The Law Minister share his views earlier with us on this issue during the Ministerial Statement. But I am still of the view that it may still be worthwhile for the proposed review that we are proposing to still consider this issue of whether we should have a more specialised or dedicated judicial track at the State Court level, encompassing Magistrates and District Judges, and discontinuing inter-services posting or rotation with other branches of the legal service, particularly with AGC. This may be preferable to the current system to provide more distance between Prosecutors and those working as Magistrates and Judges.
For example to avoid having AGC colleagues, some of them being more senior colleagues, arguing cases before them, knowing that they may well be posted back to AGC again in future. Up till now, judicial officers or AGC staff often regard themselves as working for the legal service. It is perhaps time to discard this nomenclature and have a dedicated judicial service set apart from the rest of the legal service. As the familiar administrative law saying goes, \"Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.\"
When State Court judicial officers are subject to inter-services postings or rotation, I also wonder whether at the moment sufficient time is given for any judicial officer due to be posted to clear his or her cases without compromising the justice and interest of the parties involved. At the onset, when trial dates are fixed, frequently, it may be difficult to dictate the actual length of hearing days required. Many litigants may require more trial days as the cross-examination may take more time than expected. What happens when the posting is due soon and a trial may possibly not be completed in time? Can or does the judicial officers seek a delay in his or her posting, in the interests of the justice of the litigants of the case? If this can be done, the proceedings can still continue fairly for all parties without any pressure on time. Cross-examination does not need to be rushed.
Spending more time as a judicial officer, coupled with the right training which can be provided by institutions, such as the Singapore Judicial College, can help to mitigate against factors, such as lacking life experience or lacking sufficient understanding of people from different socio-economic stratas of our society as well as any unwitting misunderstanding or prejudices.
Talking about training of judicial officers, it is good to know that training is already being increasingly prioritised. The Singapore Judicial College is a development in the right direction. Set up five years ago, it is reassuring to see a unified training champion for the Supreme and the State Courts. It conducts various programmes, including induction programme for newly appointed Judges and judicial officers. In addition to the hard skills in law administration, there are courses focused on enhancing the experience of the public, such as effective engagement of litigants who are unrepresented.
I also note from its Annual Report that the Judicial College has embarked on forthcoming research on litigants-in-person and access to justice in an adversarial system, a topic which is of high importance.
That said, lawyers still observe lopsidedness in cases where the accused person is unrepresented. For example, at sentencing hearings, the Prosecutor could be arguing for a particular sentence and submit bundles of authorities for the Judges' consideration. The poor unrepresented accused person will not know how to react to the submission and frequently just ask for leniency. The unrepresented accused person has no clue what he should expect in respect of the sentence. He or she is likely to get, except maybe some gratuitous information fed to him by the IO. He cannot distinguish the authorities submitted by the Prosecutor and would not even be able to rebut the Prosecutor if there is any mistake in applying the authorities to the facts of the case. This common example exemplifies both the resources gap and the literacy gap which the Chief Justice has talked about.
While working on improving access, we should also consider how we can enhance the ability of our Judges to reduce the effect of disadvantages faced by such unrepresented accused persons in their experiences in Court. Many of the accused persons who are unrepresented comes from the poorer and less educated strata of our society. These people rely on our judicial officers to mete out decisions and sentences, which will not only be fair to them according to the alleged crimes they are charged for but also bear in mind the handicap they may suffer from not having representation at a time of hearing. To this end, research and training should also include checking against any inadvertent prejudice against the poor or less educated, if that is not already done.
It has also been pointed out in an article and titled \"Wrongful convictions in Singapore: A general survey of risk factors\", dated 2010 Singapore Law Review by Chen Siyuan and Eunice Chua, and this is reported in Singapore Law Reform Review 28 at pages 98 to 122, that there has been reported cases where Judges made wrong assumptions on witnesses' abilities to recall facts and should be trained accordingly. A local Singapore case involving a previous Chief Justice was, in fact sight, cited.
Indeed, I would exhort the Singapore Judicial College to continue to enhance its training for Judges in the State Courts in the areas I have talked about, which in my respectful view, will certainly help to reduce any physical gap, using the term as mentioned by the Chief Justice, and to further enhance our justice system.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon Ms Sylvia Lim has called for a Constitutional review by a Supreme Court Judge, and I humbly submit that that the suggestions in my speech should also be included in such a review to make our justice system even better. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Sir, Singaporeans pledge to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. I believe Ms Parti Liyani's case has evoked such strong and widespread reactions because justice and equality are instinctive values that all Singaporeans believe in and cherish deeply.
Ms Sylvia Lim's Motion identifies fairness and independence as cornerstones of our criminal justice system. Where prosecutorial decisions and processes are concerned, justice demands fairness and independence both in reality and in perception. It is a trite saying in law that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
I will speak on two topics today. One focuses on fairness and the other focuses on independence.
I will first speak on the Prosecution's duty of disclosure and propose that its common law disclosure obligations be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC. Thereafter, I will speak on the bifurcation of the Attorney-General's roles, so that they are held by two persons and not one.
First, the prosecution's duty of disclosure. Sir, the matter of non-disclosure by the prosecution of evidence that is favourable to the defence has been the subject of much judicial attention this year. Before getting to this year's cases, let me give some background.
This House passed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code in 2010, which included formalisation of the criminal case disclosure conference procedure. Before that, there was no statutory framework for discovery in criminal matters in the State Courts. Prosecutors had overwhelming evidence in their hands compared to the defence. For example, on many occasions, a previously withheld statement of the accused would be sprung on the defence during trial to impeach the accused's credibility, forcing the defence to throw its litigation strategy out of the window.
After the framework for criminal discovery was enshrined into law, one Member of Parliament in this House said that this was akin to the criminal justice system \"moving out of the dark ages\". But I would say that we were still in some shadows as the CPC amendments did not require the prosecution to disclose material such as witnesses' statements that might help the defence.
This changed in 2011 with the Court of Appeal's judgment in Muhammad bin Kadar and another versus Public Prosecutor – hereinafter, referred to as Kadar – where the Court ruled that the prosecution must disclose to the defence any credible and relevant unused material that would be favourable to the defence's case. This was an excellent development making serious inroads into rebalancing the asymmetries of evidence between the prosecution and the defence.
However, what I wish to highlight from Kadar is this. In Court, the prosecution ran the argument that it should have an exclusive and unquestionable right to access evidence and unilaterally decide whether the material was credible and relevant based on its own bona fide exercise of subjective discretion. The Court rejected this argument, saying that such a procedure would provide an unacceptably low level of accountability.
In addition, the prosecution conceded that while it had an ethical duty to produce any witness before the Court including evidence inconsistent to its case, it argued that it had no legal duty to do so, citing a judicial precedent in Selvarajan James versus Public Prosecutor. In that case, the then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How ruled that it was not for the Court but for Parliament to impose disclosure requirements on the prosecution.
Mr Speaker, I have mentioned these arguments of the prosecution, so that this House and members of the public can appreciate one aspect of the evolution of Singapore's adversarial criminal justice system in the recent past. Even so, the starting point is one of tremendous asymmetries of information between the prosecution and the defence, with the system structurally weighted in favour of the former.
Almost 10 years after Kadar, it is apposite to ask how deeply the prosecution's common law disclosure obligations have been internalised in our criminal justice system. In Ms Parti Liyani's case, the lack of forthrightness of the DPPs in informing the trial court about the serviceability of the DVD player makes a similar point about fairness in our adversarial system. Crucially, however, it raises the public's eyebrows about our prosecutorial culture. That is all I will say about Ms Parti Liyani's case as her application against the DPPs and, specifically, their conduct in this matter, is pending.
With that background, let me move on to this year's cases on the prosecution's disclosure obligations. Tellingly, the year thus far has seen a number of judgments that, at first blush, reveal troubling aspects to the prosecution's approach to disclosing statements to the defence in spite of the almost decade-old Kadar judgment.
One significant case was Public Prosecutor versus Wee Teong Boo, hereinafter referred as Wee Teong Boo. In that case, the accused, a doctor, was convicted of outrage of modesty and sexual assault. He faced a total of 10 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he was acquitted. In its judgment released in June this year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution did not make available to the defence documents that would have established clear and material inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The Court of Appeal decided that the delay in disclosing one document in particular, prejudiced Dr Wee, even as the prosecution ran the argument that that document was actually irrelevant to the case.
In Wee Teong Boo, the Court of Appeal restated the prosecution's obligation to disclose material, as this can assist the Court in determining the truth. The Court reminded the prosecution of its overarching duty of fairness, in addition to a duty to the Court and the public, to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. The Court referred to a 1916 English judgment, which referred to public prosecutors as \"ministers of justice\", even as the Court of Appeal confirmed that it is neither the prosecutor's duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor, quoting Kadar's case, to timorously discontinue proceedings the instance some weakness is found in the case.
Sir, I wish to stress that non-disclosure by the prosecution is not synonymous – it is not synonymous with suppression of evidence. But non-disclosure revelations in cases like Wee Teong Boo risk crystallising such a public perception. Furthermore, judicial decisions on failures of the prosecution to meet disclosure requirements can easily cause the public to lose trust in the Attorney-General's Chambers and by extension, the criminal justice system.
To that end, the Court of Appeal's decision in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad versus Public Prosecutor, also released this year, has expanded the Kadar disclosure obligations even further. For example, Kadar did not require the release of statements that were neutral or adverse to the defence, but the Court in Nabill ruled that as the statements of material witnesses would in most cases be limited, and that all statements including those neutral or adverse to the defence should be released to the defence as a matter of routine. Nabill points to a clear recognition by the Court of Appeal of the central role of disclosure by the prosecution in a fair and just criminal justice system.
Yet another case was reported in the mainstream media only last week. In this on-going case, a defence lawyer argued that the conviction of an accused person ought to be ruled unsafe because the prosecution did not disclose material evidence. The Defence in this particular case had earlier filed a criminal motion in the High Court. At this hearing, the prosecution also accepted there had been a breach of its disclosure obligations under Kadar and Nabill, and that the trial judge had erred in concluding that a statement in question was not liable to be disclosed.
These cases bring me to my suggestion to this House that the prosecution's disclosure obligations should be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Mr Speaker, a question that stands out is that since there is case law, why would Parliament need to legislate the prosecution's disclosure obligations? The prosecution in its submissions in Nabill paradoxically makes the argument for legislation. Tellingly, in that case, the prosecution submitted that it may not, despite acting in good faith, fully appreciate the defence that the accused intends to run and, as such, the prosecution admitted that it might, and I quote, \"inadvertently fail to disclose statements which might tend to support the defence\". The Court of Appeal considered this position as, I quote, \"an intolerable outcome\".
Sir, I believe the prosecution made its point in earnest and the status quo is something for this House to contemplate upon deeply. In my view, Mr Speaker, it is precisely because of the very prospect of inadvertent non-disclosure that Parliament has to legislate forthwith to prevent possible future miscarriages of justice because of non-disclosure.
The inadvertent failure, and I stress, not failure, but inadvertent failure to disclose by the prosecution may be better appreciated if we remember the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system. Some defence counsel and deputy public prosecutors can be far more adversarial than others, and this structure reality and such human factors are potentially a barrier against more consistent standards of the prosecution's disclosure obligations.
Separately, the judgments in Kadar and Nabil require that the prosecution actively considers, on an on-going basis, its disclosure requirements. In view of the human factors alluded to earlier, can consistent standards of disclosure represent a reasonable expectation of the prosecution's obligations, as it would naturally be more substantively focused on its own case, especially during a trial?
I make this point not to run down the prosecution or imply that they are likely to fall short in their disclosure obligations more often than not. But even so, Mr Speaker, a perhaps overly sanguine expectation of consistent disclosure standards combined with the reality of inadvertent non-disclosure, as admitted by prosecutors today, make it entirely plausible that we could see more future cases of non-disclosure that prejudice the defence, if a decisive legislative move is not made.
At minimum, an amendment to the CPC to codify the prosecution's disclosure requirements, as established in Kadar and Nabill, would send a powerful signal that prioritises proactive and early disclosure by the prosecution at the pre-trial stage when the case for the prosecution is filed. This would imbibe greater confidence into the criminal justice system by virtue of far fewer miscarriages of justice arising from non-disclosure.
Mr Speaker, I would like to advance this matter further with two suggestions. First, if the Ministry is minded to consider a legislative amendment to the CPC, it would be worthwhile to seek the inputs of the Criminal Bar and the Attorney-General's Chambers on the ambit of documents and other material that should be made available to the defence, in the interest of justice.
In 2010, the Minister argued against criminal disclosure by stating that disclosure of witness statements went against public policy considerations. Kadar and Nabill have changed this position. It would be worthwhile to review the extent of disclosure that would serve the ends of justice.
In my opinion, Sir, more disclosure in criminal matters cannot be a bad thing. It would allow the Court to have a fuller picture of the circumstances of an alleged crime, with all the relevant evidence marshalled and admitted before the Court from both sides before deciding whether to convict or acquit an accused. Such a regime could also contribute to a more efficient justice system with defence lawyers in a better position to advise on the prospects of success at trial. A decision by the defence to plead guilty early, for example, would save the prosecution time. More disclosure could also lower the prospect of cracked trials where the accused pleads guilty shortly after trial begins, but after significant time and resources have already been spent by the prosecution in trial preparation.
My second suggestion goes to levelling the playing field for the defence, not for its own sake but to further the interests of justice. The fact today is that even if the prosecution discloses to the defence witnesses statements that could help the accused person's case, the defence still has a problem. Under section 259 of the CPC, statements of witnesses are not admissible in Court unless specific conditions have been met. I have been reliably informed that in cases where the prosecution adheres to its disclosure obligations, it objects to the admission of a disclosed witness statement favourable to the defence during trial, as it is entitled to do under section 259.
Simply put, the prosecution's position is that if the defence wants to use the contents of a favourable statement, it should get the witness to give evidence in Court, so that the evidence can be tested. From a legal point of view, this is a sound argument. In practice though, it is not as simple as it sounds for the defence. Before calling a witness, defence counsel would, understandably, want to interview that witness. But what if the witness refuses to cooperate with the defence? The option is open to subpoena the witness but the defence may not want to subpoena a witness if it has not had a chance to interview the witness, to assess the probative value of putatively favourable evidence against its prejudicial effect.
As it stands today, even with a favourable witness statement in hand, the defence is effectively playing Russian roulette should it choose to subpoena a witness without being fully apprised of the facts and circumstances that led to the making of what the prosecution regards as a favourable statement. In extremis, an unwilling witness may turn hostile on the stand.
To achieve greater fairness before trial, my suggestion is that arrangements should be made for defence counsel to be given the option to interview witnesses, whose statements are helpful to the defence, in a police station. This ought to be considered, so as to reassure witnesses, and for the defence to clarify their statements before trial. Thereafter, the defence can decide whether to call the witness to Court.
The counter-argument against allowing the defence to interview witnesses is that the authorities and the prosecution should not be burdened with such a request. After all, in civil cases, the same considerations come into play for counsel. The difference, Sir, is precisely that. The difference is that we are not speaking of civil cases here. In criminal matters, the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the demands of natural justice and the importance of getting at the truth of a matter in Court, notwithstanding the adversarial system, requires higher thresholds of fairness than in civil cases. A system that contributes to a thorough evaluation of the evidence, not just for the prosecution but the defence as well, would strengthen the rule of law.
As reforms to the criminal justice system are an on-going process, I hope the Government can look into the matter of codifying the prosecution's disclosure requirements and the extent to which what further disclosure requirements are to be made in the name of fairness and to achieve the ends of justice.
Sir, I move on now to my second topic which is on the role of the Attorney-General. In order that there be greater independence in the criminal justice system that can be readily seen by the public, the Workers' Party calls upon the Government to split the office of the Attorney-General or AG into two roles of the public prosecutor and the Government's legal advisor.
What we are proposing is not new. The Workers' Party called for the splitting of roles of the AG in our 2020 election Manifesto. This was also raised by Ms Sylvia Lim at the Committee of Supply Debate this year on the Attorney-General's Chambers.
Additionally, this was proposed by no less than a former nominated Member of this House, Prof Walter Woon, who served as the fifth Attorney-General of Singapore. He persuasively argued for such a separation in an opinion piece published in The Straits Times in September 2017. But we raise this matter again for the Government to reconsider its position and consider how the current system can be improved, and it is timely to raise this again in light of this Motion.
In support of my call, I will make three points. First, there are gaps and blind spots in the current prosecutorial structure; second, improvements should be made to strengthen the system both in reality, as well as in public perception; and third, there are no robust reasons, I would offer, for all the roles of the Attorney-General to be held in one person.
My first point is that there is a weakness in our prosecutorial structure. Our current structure has two key characteristics that taken together, represent an area where the system can be strengthened.
One, the AG is entrusted with two roles. The first is that of being the Government's legal advisor and the second is that of public prosecutor. As the Government's lawyer, the AG takes charge of three areas: legislation, international affairs and civil matters involving the Government, including lawsuits. As public prosecutor, the AG is to prosecute without fear or favour. Two, the AG has absolute discretion as to whether and who to prosecute. Each of these characteristics may or may not be a weakness in itself. But it is the combination of both these two characteristics that can compromise the systems foundation in some cases.
As the Government's legal advisor, the AG's duty is to protect the interests of the Government. As the public prosecutor, the AG represents the public and must prosecute without fear or favour, even if it means damaging the reputation of the government of the day, or prosecuting Ministers or even the Prime Minister.
This duality of roles in one person brings with it a potential conflict of interest for the AG which can create potential for abuse. It is not difficult to imagine cases where the role of the Government's legal advisor conflicts with the role of the public prosecutor. Say the employees of a Government-linked company pay bribes in order to secure contracts overseas. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, extraterritorial corruption is punishable in Singapore. However, prosecuting these employees which has to be in open court is likely to bring with it negative publicity against the Government of the day in the local and international news media, simply by virtue of the company being Government-linked. And AG might believe in all sincerity that the interests of the Government are better served by not prosecuting the employees, and as public prosecutor, then decides not to prosecute. Clearly, the roles of the Government's legal advisor and the public prosecutor are in conflict.
Another example – say a suspect has been arrested for an offence while in custody. He suffers a serious injury either through a assault or negligence that puts him in hospital. If this suspect is eventually charged in open court, this is likely to bring with it negative publicity against the government of the day in the local and international media. And AG might believe, again in also all sincerity, that the interests of the Government are better protected and better served by making a deal not to prosecute the suspect in return for the suspect not suing the Government in Civil Court. Even if an AG can mentally separate the roles and prosecute regardless of the negative consequences to his client, the Government, the fact is that a conflict exists.
We should have a system where the basis of such conflict should as far as possible not even arise. Mr Speaker, the elephant in the room is that this conflict of interest could go even further and facilitate abuse by a future government. Again, some scenarios are not hard to imagine. Say in the future, a Prime Minister installs an AG who is friendly to him. At the time of the appointment by the President, there is no reason to suspect anything untoward about the AG. Then, the Prime Minister commits serious offences, perhaps acts of corruption. Despite clear evidence, the AG decides not to prosecute the Prime Minister. This could be due to pressure of desire to keep his job, for favours or simply because the Prime Minister and the AG are cronies. Potential abuse and the pressure on prosecutors is not the stuff of fiction, but a real prospect.
Prof Woon in his opinion piece, says that a look at the state of the world shows that the pressure on prosecutors is common. There are too easily available examples or perhaps I should call them cautionary tales. I will not say more except to say that one is a close neighbour and the other is a major country that regularly makes the news because of its President.
Both these countries have had prominent cases of their Attorney-Generals being subject to political pressure. They are both instances of how the system can become compromised rapidly even in countries that pride themselves on the rule of law. Let Singapore not be one such country in future.
I now move to my second point on this subject. What improvements should be implemented to strengthen the independence of the public prosecutor, both in reality and in the perception of the public? I mentioned two characteristics in our system that contribute to the problem – the dual role of the AG, as Government lawyer and public prosecutor, and his absolute discretion in prosecutions. As it is the combination of these two characteristics that contribute to potential conflict, a number of changes can possibly ameliorate the prospects of abuse.
The first and most obvious change is to split the role of Government legal advisor from the role of public prosecutor. Neither role should be subordinate to the other and different offices should be formed. Even if no other change is made, this single change removes the possibility of a conflict of interest when one person performs both roles. Prof Woon says that the prosecutorial function must be held by the Attorney-General as the AG has the necessary stature being second only to the Chief Justice in the hierarchy. He says that the role of being Government legal advisor which involves handling civil matters, international matters and legislation, could be given to the Solicitor-General, for example. The Workers' Party is open to these views.
However, while the splitting of roles takes away conflict of interest, it may not be enough to entrench the independence of the public prosecutor. The second suggestion is for the public prosecutor to be appointed for a fixed term of a relatively significant length. Prof Woon suggests a term of five years. His reason is that this promotes stability in office. The Workers' Party is open to this idea of a five-year term as we believe it not only promotes stability, but also independence. The third suggestion is for the system to eschew to the appointment of an ex-Member of Parliament as public prosecutor. Such an individual can of course be considered for the role of Government legal advisor. And there are two reasons for this.
First, it would be natural for a former elected Member of Parliament to have imbibed the political views of the party he or she used to represent. Even if a public prosecutor who was previously a Member of Parliament does his or her sincere best to be objective, they cannot but help be a product of their previous beliefs, which they perhaps still hold. A public prosecutor who was a Member of Parliament of a political party and steeped in the party's ideology for years, is likely to hold certain beliefs and approach things in certain ways.
Second, if there is no connection between the public prosecutor and the Government in power, this engenders greater faith among the public that the prosecutorial system is fair and conducted without fear or favour. Another aspect to this is that even if a public prosecutor is completely objective and able to divorce himself from his previous political loyalties and beliefs, it is possible that the public may not believe it. This is especially so in light of the internet and the easy accessibility of the Member of Parliament's political views when in party politics. Sir, public confidence in the independence of the system is critical. Even if there is objective independence, is their perceived independence? And insofar, as public confidence and trust is concerned, perception is highly significant.
It is noteworthy that the Attorney-General's Chambers made it a point to release a statement that the Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions regarding Ms Parti Liyani, and that he would recuse himself from the review of the case. This is a clear indicator that the Attorney-General's Chambers and the current Attorney-General himself recognised that the public cares about independence and that public perception matters in reinforcing the rule of law.
Sir, the Government made its position known on this matter at the Committee of Supply Debate in 2017 when the then Senior Minister of State for Law, Ms Indranee Rajah responded to a cut on the Attorney-General Chambers by Ms Sylvia Lim. On the matter of the political affiliation of the AG, the Government's position was that in many first-world countries, the AG was a political appointee and that these countries had deemed such a system to be perfectly proper.
However, there are many things that Singapore does differently to deliver effective and robust outcomes in light of unique local circumstances. The political dynamics, competitive political systems, and the limits to political terms, in many first-world countries also operate to represent a check on political appointees.
Ours has been a one-party dominant state for more than half a century. So, the point of an independent public prosecutor free from political links would in fact buttress the rule of law and remain in step with the continued development of an autochthonous legal system.
Of course, Mr Speaker, no matter what is done to entrench independence, there will always be someone who is dissatisfied or will imagine conspiracies. But in law, we invoke a reasonable person who in more misogynistic times, was the reasonable man. What level of independence would satisfy a reasonable person? To this, what I would forward, Mr Speaker, is that the current system can be reviewed and improved against the prospects and perceptions of non-independence.
My final suggestion is a short one. To strengthen the system, the public prosecutor should have criminal justice experience, whether as a prosecutor, defence counsel or judicial officer. Again, public perception that the public prosecutor is qualified for the job is critical. While this may not always be possible in all cases, a commitment to criminal law and a deep desire to understand and master it is critical.
Let me now move on to my third point which is that there are simply no robust reasons for not splitting the roles of the Attorney-General in two. Ms Sylvia Lim raised the splitting of the roles of the Attorney-General at the Committee of Supply Debate for the Attorney-General's Chambers in February 2020. Senior Minister of State for Law, as he was at that time, Minister Edwin Tong responded. Essentially, his reply was that a large proportion of the public has confidence in our justice system; our system is working well, and it has sufficient safeguards. The implied conclusion was that it is not necessary to split the roles. At no point did Minister Tong say either why it is a bad idea to split the AG's roles or why it is preferable for the roles of the AG to be held by the same person.
The Workers' Party understands that policy-making and in this case, amending the Constitution often involves trade-offs and crucially an eye into the future about how a law or policy will serve situations that had not been originally envisaged and can last the test of time. However, I would argue that there are no negative trade-offs in splitting the roles of the Attorney-General into the public prosecutor and the Government's legal advisor. From the perspective of justice and independence, there is only upside. The only reason I can think of for the roles of the AG to be held by one person is that somehow, we lack sufficient legal talent in Singapore to find two people to fill the roles of the Government's legal advisor and public prosecutor.
However, that is unlikely to be the case. Right now, in the Attorney-General's Chambers, there is an Attorney-General, two Deputy Attorney Generals, the Solicitor-General and a Deputy Solicitor-General. While the Deputy Solicitor-General heads the Legislation Division, there is also a Chief Counsel who leads the Civil Division and the Director-General who heads the International Affairs Division.
Mr Speaker, those are my three points for this topic of splitting the role of the AG. There is weakness in the current structure and improvements should be made to strengthen the system. There are also no robust reasons for all the AGs' roles to be held by one person and to that end, I support Ms Sylvia Lim's call for this issue of the splitting of the Attorney General's roles to be reviewed by a Constitutional Commission.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude this way. Let us think of our justice system as a house which has served as a family home. The house may have stood firm for decades and the occupants may have lived safely, but there is a flaw in the foundations. If a future occupant of that house uses it in a way that it was not meant to be used, for example, like for commercial storage or is a restaurant, the foundations may give way, harming all the occupants of the house. There is no reason why we cannot fix the foundations or at the very least strengthen it now.
In doing so, we can move the needle on justice and independence in our legal system and in doing so leave a more secure justice system that reinforces the rule of law in Singapore for our next generation. I support the Motion in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Notwithstanding my exchanges with the Minister for Home Affairs just now, I would like to state my case again for an open and independent inquiry into Parti Liyani's case for further consideration by the Government.
Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party’s stance is very clear. We think that the wide implications of the lapses in the criminal justice system in the Parti Liyani case warrant an open and independent inquiry.
I do not think it is unfair to say that there were lapses in all three major institutions of our criminal justice system – the Police, the prosecution and the State Courts.
We were extremely fortunate that Ms Liyani’s counsel Mr Balchandani had an unwavering conviction to ensure that justice was done, and the High Court caught those errors and reversed them, thus preventing a miscarriage of justice.
While it is of absolute importance that both MHA and AGC conduct their own internal investigations, it is frankly not enough.
There are three main points of concern with merely conducting an internal review. Firstly, it is not unreasonable to say that most would want to paint the best picture of the situation when it is your organisation on the line. Are they independent enough to be completely objective in their review?
Secondly, systemic issues are not going to be caught by piece-meal internal investigations since they are conducting micro and not macro level investigations. An independent inquiry would be able to examine the entire criminal justice process across all the three major institutions to ensure that systemic problems, where identified, are acknowledged by the various institutions and considered for improvement to the system.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to an example of an independent inquiry and that was the Committee of Inquiry or COI into the MRT breakdowns of 2011. In the wake of the two consecutive breakdowns in December 2011, then Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew convened the COI which ran in parallel to SMRT and LTA’s own internal investigations as concerns were raised about possible systemic shortcomings.
I quote the former Minister, “LTA and SMRT have also started their own separate internal investigations. This is to be expected. Both parties clearly have the duty and responsibility to find out what went wrong, especially for those areas that they are accountable for… The COI on the other hand is an independent party appointed by the MOT and will also look into the larger systems issues beyond that which SMRT and LTA will cover in their respective probes”.
Compared to the MRT case, the systemic failure in the Parti Liyani case needed even more coordination in order to be addressed because it is not restricted to one Ministry but also involved the AGC and the State Courts.
Thirdly, it is appropriate to reiterate that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done. An internal review by the relevant agencies alone, is unlikely to assuage those doubts amongst our citizens, nor that justice was seen to be done.
Singaporeans like to know why a simple theft case involving an underprivileged in our society has taken four long years to see the light of day. The time and resources required in our criminal justice process means that the odds are stacked heavily against the underprivileged in our society. How can we improve the access to justice for these people?
Although the legal process is based on evidence, Singaporeans are also looking for answers as to why there was little compassion shown to the underprivileged in our society. Especially in this case, both parties were on opposite ends of society, one party living in the highest echelons of society and the other the complete opposite.
In his appeal judgment, Justice Chan Seng Onn has also raised some questions about the plaintiffs’ motive in filing their Police report. So it is not just the lack of compassion but there is also a perception of favouritism among some segments of Singaporeans, where the rich and powerful can directly or indirectly enjoy the power of the state to their benefit.
This has to to addressed seriously. As Han Fook Kwang put it, “People can accept huge differences in wealth, say, between a business tycoon and his servant. This is the reality of a capitalist society like Singapore. But they will revolt if, on top of this wealth gap, there is a privilege and entitlement divide that separates the elites from the masses.”
Convening an independent inquiry with hearings that are open to the public, or live-streamed, would go a long way to show our citizens that justice is being done. Mr Speaker, Chinese please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Singapore Progressive Party calls on the Government to set up an independent committee of inquiry as soon as possible for further investigation if there are systemic problems in our criminal justice system.
Internal investigation by the various criminal justice agencies are not enough to restore people's confidence in the impartiality of the Judiciary.
Singaporeans do not understand why a seemingly simple theft case involving a person belonging to the vulnerable group took more than four years to see the light of the day. The effect that there are so much resources are needed to go to Court means that our judicial system is unfair to the disadvantaged group. We have to give the disadvantaged a fairer chance.
Despite the fact that the law is based on procedures and evidence, it is difficult for Singaporeans to understand why our legal system is almost completely unsympathetic towards the disadvantaged groups. In particular in the Liyani's case, parties are at an extreme opposite of the society, with one party at the highest echelon of society and the other at the lower end.
In his judgment, High Court Judge Chan Seng Onn also expressed doubts about the motive of the plaintiff in reporting the case. This had led many to suspect that our system is only lacking in compassion but also that the rich and powerful may use the power of the State to seek welfare for themselves.
So, we must do all we can to dispel these doubts.
As Han Fook Kwang said that people can accept huge welfare between a business tycoon and his servant because it is reality in Singapore, a capitalist country. But if there is a gap of privileges beyond this welfare between the rich and the poor which separates the elites from the people, then the people will definitely revolt.
The best way to dispel any doubt is to set up independent committee of inquiry and broadcast the proceedings live. This will prove to our people that our country will uphold justice.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, fairness, access and independence should be affirmed as cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. In pursuing these goals, we should address shortcomings and blind spots in our current institutional matrix of laws, regulations, policies and practices relating to justice.
Sir, I should focus my speech on only one recommendation that I would argue would advance significantly towards that goal – creating the office of an ombudsman.
The Workers' Party has advocated for setting up the office of an independent ombudsman in our GE 2015 and 2020 manifestos. In its GE 2011 Manifesto, the Workers' Party proposed the establishment of an independent Police Complaints Commission for some of the same reasons.
Sir, an ombudsman would function as an independent office to investigate complaints about administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, inconsistency, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness.
Parti Liyani's case has raised the question of wider access to the criminal justice system and avenues of redress on the part of those with lesser means. An ombudsman would provide access to an independent public office with remit and resources to investigate potential wrongdoing, errors, lapses or weaknesses in the conduct of public officials.
The office of the ombudsman would be open to Singaporeans of all backgrounds and income profiles.
The remit of the ombudsman in our proposal would extend to the conduct of all public servants, including the Police and the prosecution service. In so far as the Police are concerned, this role has parallels with that of independent Police Complaints Commission's or councils found in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Hong Kong.
However, the ombudsman would not have the authority to investigate complaints against the Judiciary so as to protect the vital tenets of judicial independence from any potential or inappropriate external interference.
Sir, the idea of creating an office of the ombudsman in Singapore is not new by any means. Let me recount some highlights of past public discussion about the proposal to establish an office of the ombudsman in Singapore. The idea has in fact been debated publicly and in this House on many occasions.
The 1966 Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission recommended instituting an ombudsman to ensure an independent check on the acts and decisions of the public sector, apart from the principle of Ministerial responsibility. The Government then responded that it was not rejecting the proposal but that it was not the right time to institute it. This was in the 1960s because citizens had not yet developed a clear understanding of their rights and obligations.
According to then Law Minister, Mr EW Barker, such an institution would be, and I quote, \"flooded by complaints by people who do not know what are the limits of his jurisdiction\".
In 1990, then Member of Parliament Mr Davinder Singh called for the establishment of the ombudsman, noting that, and I quote, \"it is in our interest that we develop a system of accountability, a system which will assure the man in the street that if he has a grievance, he can take it up to a person or a body who has a right or has a power to look into it, look into the files of the Ministry, if necessary, or bring a complaint of shoddy treatment up to the superiors\".
In 1994, as has been alluded to earlier today, then backbencher and current Law Minister Mr K Shanmugam also raised it in Parliament, suggesting that an ombudsman, and I quote, \"might actually help retain the confidence of people in the system, to have an intermediate institution which can provide for a quick and effective remedy and reserving the final appeal to the minister for extreme cases\".
In 2011, then Member of Parliament and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, called for the establishment of an ombudsman during the debate on the President's Address, noting that former President, Mr Tony Tan, had revived interest in this during the presidential campaign.
Mr Singh asked a Parliamentary Question in 2012 as to whether the Government will consider whistle blower protection legislation and the institution of a national ombudsman to act as a layer of deterrence against wayward civil servants.
In response, then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Teo Chee Hean stated that there are multiple channels for raising irregularities. Independent bodies, like the Public Service Commission, the Auditor-General's Office and CPIB are involved in the process.
Sir, other Members of Parliament who have spoken in favour of the idea of an ombudsman over the years include Mr Zaqy Mohamad in 2013, my colleague, then Non-Constituency Member of Parliament and now Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan in 2016, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin in 2016 and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Kok Heng Leun in 2017 and myself in 2018.
Sir, there are a number of arguments for an ombudsman in the Singapore context. I shall attempt to summarise these in the following three points.
Firstly, an ombudsman could undertake an inquiry that is independent from and seen to be independent from a public sector agency, which is the subject of a complaint, setting it apart from internal enquiries that occur within Ministries or Statutory Boards, by the quality service department, for example. Having access to such a check would, in fact, bolster the standing of the Public Service.
Secondly, an ombudsman would be equipped with investigative resources and a remit to independently investigate complaints that organisations like the Auditor-Generala's Office and Public Service Commission do not currently have.
Thirdly, an ombudsman may uncover policy gaps or institutional shortcomings that are not related purely to corruption, accounting or corporate governance that are dealt with by the CPIB and Auditor-General's Office, as I argued in Parliament in 2018. The office of the ombudsman could therefore table a review paper every year analysing in aggregate, the cases it had dealt with, describing any systemic patterns discerned and putting forth evidence-driven recommendations for systemic change in how the Public Service interfaces with citizens.
In 2016, during the public discussion on the Constitutional amendment to the elected presidency scheme, scholar Mr Chirag Agarwal published an op-ed essay outlining outlining how an ombudsman could benefit Singapore, and I think it is worth citing that. To paraphrase, he argued firstly, the delivery of public services has become more complex and citizens have become more demanding. Parliament has had to address specific incidents involving Government agencies. An ombudsman should be able to investigate such incidents in the first instance and recommend corrective action where necessary while the Government focuses on developing sound public policy. The Government could then consider any policy recommendations made by the ombudsman in its annual report. Secondly, an ombudsman could also quash unsubstantiated claims and vicious attacks on the Public Service by conducting a transparent and independent investigation into any allegation. And thirdly, the transparency and independence of the ombudsman will help build trust in the Government.
Next, Sir, I would like to consider examples of other jurisdictions that have created the office of an ombudsman or its equivalent.
A 2018 OECD working paper noted that almost 30% of governments have included independent institutions like ombudsman offices to foster a more \"open state\" which OECD recommendation on the council open government defines as and I quote, \"When the executive legislature judiciary independent public institutions and all levels of government recognising the respective roles, prerogatives and overall independence according to their existing legal and institutional frameworks collaborate, exploit synergies and share good practises and lessons learnt among themselves and with other stakeholders to promote transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation and support of democracy and inclusive growth.\"
Notably, 96% of the ombudsman institutions studied in this report focus on complaints against the public administration and 67% also conduct mediation of such complaints between citizens and the public administration. This is the OECD, the club of more developed economies.
A 2011 report by the Asian Development Bank or ADB noted that most Asian Ombudsman Association or AOA members focus on the following mandates.
One, providing redress for individual complainants. Two, addressing systemic issues to improve public administration. And three, enforcing accountability in government. The ADB report noted that an ombudsman can be established either under the Constitution by statute or administrative regulations. Some relevant Asian AOA member institutions of interests and their legal basis includes the Ombudsman of Indonesia created under presidential issuance decree number 44; the Ombudsman of Hong Kong created under the Ombudsman Ordinance in 1989; Malaysia's Public Complaints Bureau created under administrative circular number 4 in 1971; the Philippines Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution Republic Act.
Sir, I shall highlight for more detailed treatment here, just two examples, Hong Kong and Australia.
Established in 1989, the Ombudsman in Hong Kong monitors public governance. The office strives to improve the quality of public administration and enhance the culture of service through independent objective and impartial investigation into complaints received and by self-initiated studies in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Ombudsman has powers to: firstly, investigate complaints from aggrieved persons about maladministration; secondly investigate complaints against government departments and agencies for non-compliance with a code of access to information; and thirdly, initiate direct investigation into issues of potentially wide public interest and concern.
Next, let me turn to Australia. The office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in Australia safeguards on aims to safeguard the community in its dealings with the Australian government. It is responsible for ensuring that the actions of agencies are fair and responsible by: (a) handling complaints; (b) conducting investigations; (c) performing audits and inspections and (d) encouraging good administration. The office of Commonwealth Ombudsman was created by law in 1976 in Australia. The Act provides that the Ombudsman is to investigate the administrative actions of Australian government departments and agencies. The Ombudsman interestingly is also the law enforcement and ombudsman and can investigate complaints about the actions of the Australian Federal Police or AFP, and about the policies, practices and procedures of the AFP as an agency. If a person is dissatisfied after making a complaint to the AFP, they can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reports to Parliament, at least annually, on the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the AFP's complaint handling.
Sir, next, I would like to talk about next steps. I have argued for the creation of an office of independent ombudsman in Singapore to investigate complaints against public servants. We propose submitting the idea of creating such an office as an item to be considered in the external review described by my Party Chair and Member of Parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim.
The review process could consider the role such an ombudsman could play in our current eco-system of laws, regulations and practices, in the context of the questions raised by the Parti Liyani's case and taking into consideration and useful lessons from the study of the operating model for an ombudsman in force at other jurisdictions.
Sir, there are various models on how an ombudsman could actually operate, found in different jurisdictions around the world. The classical model is that of an office with extensive powers to investigate cases, question witnesses and requisition documents, one where the ombudsman may work towards mediation of conflicts. If no solution can be reached, they will provide recommendations to the relevant administrative unit. That is the classical model. In this model, the office would have no power of coercion and can only apply soft pressure to get the recommendation accepted. The ombudsman would submit an annual activity report to Parliament.
Sir, this is close to the model common in Western Europe and some commonwealth countries, including the UK, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Hong Kong. So, in other words, the model for an ombudsman could be as follows: the office investigates all complaints using an objective process of fact-finding. The office of the ombudsman would then recommend follow-up action to the public sector agency concerned. If the follow-up action is not undertaken to a satisfactory extent, the ombudsman would have recourse to the Courts or would have other means of recourse, such as publishing its findings, for example. The ombudsman would be appointed by Parliament for a fixed term and would be answerable to Parliament.
The office of the ombudsman could be enshrined in the Constitution in an Article that could also specify the grounds for disqualification. Such an Article on disqualification could be modelled on Article 72 of the Constitution for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights or the mechanism for the removal of Judges under Article 98(3)(iv). I should stress that this is one model for constructing such an office that seems to me to be reasonable but the question of the operating model for an ombudsman warrants far deeper scrutiny before an appropriate model is defined.
Next, Sir, I would like to deal with objections to the idea of an ombudsman.
Currently, the Singapore Government rejection of the notion of an ombudsman seems to be premised on the fact that there are sufficient mechanisms already in place to receive public feedback, safeguard public trust and maintain the integrity of public institutions. I shall attempt to deal with these objections one by one.
First, we have the possibility of internal reviews within Ministries and Statutory Boards. But as I mentioned earlier, these would risk not being seen as independent and thus potentially leave open the possibility of a growing trust and confidence deficit.
Second, we have the citizen's right to sue the Government in Court. However, most citizens in Singapore believe that this avenue of redress comes with considerable, if not, prohibitive cost, in terms of money and time, and they believe this for good reason. Citizens will first have to find a law firm willing to sue the Government and face the AGC as an opponent. Next, if it is a judicial review action, leave of Court to commence such an action must first be obtained and only then can action be brought. Therefore, two sets of legal costs are involved in a judicial review action.
Third, many documents are in the Government's possession and these may be denied to a litigant due to a claim of official secrecy. All these factors, taken together, explain the rarity of such legal action.
Thirdly, we have the Public Service Commission or PSC. However, the PSC is not an investigative body per se and does not possess the resources and expertise to look into complaints against the Public Service to approximate what we see in the office of the ombudsman in, say, Hong Kong and Australia. Moreover, the PSC does have powers to conduct investigations into misconduct by public servants, but only on a complaint by a Permanent Secretary as relates to sections 3 and 4 of the Public Services Disciplinary Proceedings Regulations. This means that PSC cannot conduct investigations and complaints brought by members of the public.
Fourthly, we have REACH but REACH again is not an investigative body that can probe the actions of public servants and provide closure in a way that is seen as independent.
Fifth, we have the Auditor-General's Office or AGO but the work of the AGO is primarily focused on the annual audit of public sector which involves randomly selecting agencies for audit checks on a sample check basis as auditors do. No doubt the AGO can be ordered to conduct off-cycle special audits. In 2016, I obtained a Parliamentary reply to the effect that there have only been two AGO Special Audits ordered by the Government in the past 20 years. The first related to claims made by Opposition Members of Parliament in Parliament about healthcare subsidies in 1996. The second was a request audit of the Workers' Party left Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council in 2014. However, Sir, the AGO is currently not set up to field the broad complaints about public sector lapses, errors or poor quality of service.
Sixth, we have the CPIB but the CPIB only investigates and resolves allegations of malfeasance, corruption and so on, which are potentially criminal offences, not oppressive, unfair or rude behaviour by public servants, for example; or flaws in the complaints handling process, for example.
And seventh, we have Meet-the-People sessions. It has been a hallmark of our system that Members of Parliament write letters of appeal to Government agencies to address the grievances of constituents. But, Sir, these appeals are subsequently addressed by the agencies themselves. The process does not amount to an independent investigation by an external agency, resourced and qualified to do the same. Members of Parliament's letters merely present the perspective of the constituent. There is no independent fact-finding.
Lastly, Sir, let me address the objection that creating an office of the ombudsman will incite a flood of frivolous complaints against public servants, consuming enormous resources and sparking the growth of a complaint culture that may undermine confidence in the Public Service and induce public servants to do their work defensively, as it were.
One can discern echoes of such an argument in the response of former Law Minister, Mr EW Barker to the idea of an ombudsman in the 1960s. Considering this argument more closely, one can see that this is an argument against creating responsive complaints handling processes of any kind rather than being an argument specifically against the institutional form of an ombudsman.
If we are worried about the system being flooded with frivolous complaints, ought we not to similarly abolish Quality Service or QS departments in Ministries, for example? Why does an ombudsman risked triggering a flood whereas these other institutional forms of complaint handling do not?
Moreover, if a flood of complaints is occasioned by the creation of an ombudsman as it were, might that not be proof that there were latent grievances that members of the public hesitated to bring forth reasons of lack of confidence in existing channels of redress? If a reasonable fraction of those latent or pent-up grievances turn out to be legitimate, would addressing them not be a good thing for the quality of justice and fairness in our social fabric?
Mr Speaker: The Member will be reminded he has 20 seconds left.
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, and just in time, the office of the ombudsman would concentrate professional investigative resources into handling complaints of lapses, errors, poor processes and blind spots in the work of public servants. In doing so, it would strengthen public confidence in the state among our citizens since they would know that there is an independent avenue of redress accessible to the ordinary citizen who cannot afford costly legal action against the Government. Such a move would be a significant step towards achieving what this Motion today calls for, making justice accessible to all.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fairness is one of the key foundations of our society. It is etched in our pledge as Singaporeans. This democratic society is built on the basis of justice and equality. We were raised with these values and they are entrenched in us. Therefore, when something that goes against these values happens, we will reject it and our people will voice it out.
Recently, the Ms Parti Liyani's case has received a lot of attention and made people voice their concerns. This case involved a helper and her previous employer, Mr Liew Mun Leong who is from a well-to-do family. One issue that has arisen in the minds of many people is whether someone with a high position in society, like Mr Liew, had used his status to influence our justice system. Many questioned whether our justice system, which encompass the police, the Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) and the Court, is truly fair and treats everyone equally. We have seen many news materials, sharing of opinions and comments about this case in the traditional media and social media. Maybe not everyone knows each detail of this case or had the opportunity to read all 100 pages of the written judgment of the High Court judge, but many were affected by the issue of fairness that was raised.
When doubts were raised about the system and processes in our institutions arising from the decision of the High Court judge and the public concerns in this matter, the Government took steps to investigate further. This reflects the transparency of the Government and our commitment to fairness. Minister Shanmugam, from when this case was first raised, had already stated that we have to find out what happened, how it happened and later deal with it; and take responsibility. He said that it was the best way to build people's trust towards our system. After that, he said, we should disclose the steps that we have taken openly after the review is completed. This has been done.
Earlier, Minister Shanmugam had analysed in detail the specifics of this case. He gave a report on the findings of the investigation that was carried out and answered Members' questions regarding this matter. The investigation showed that, amongst other things, indeed, there is room for the police and the Attorney-General's Chamber to improve the process of preparing the case for trial. For example, the Police should not have taken so long to take a record of the things that were said to be stolen after the police report was made. This shortcoming was acknowledged and assurance was given that this matter will be given attention.
However, there was no finding of any wrong-doing or influence over the police or AGC. There was no evidence that showed any personal relationship between the Liew family and the police, the AGC or the judge. The police and prosecutors actually considered this case as a routine case such that the superiors were not aware of this case while it was in progress.
The reality is that, specifically for this case, there is no basis to say that there is unfairness or wrongdoing in the judicial process.
The question now is whether the issues of justice and fairness are systemic, are we seeing wrongdoing that is happening pervasively in our justice system? Is our justice system broken to the extent that we need a review?
On this, I would like to raise a few matters.
Firstly, I feel it is important for us to realise that for each case that is portrayed in the media, there are many other cases that are dealt with by the police and prosecutors. In 2019, there were 35,209 criminal cases recorded. In the same year, the prosecutors dealt with more than 500 trial cases and 6,189 cases where the accused pleaded guilty. The cases that are shown by the media usually have elements that are sensationalized, but when you look at it deeper, there are good explanations that are given, like the Parti Liyani case that we discussed earlier. If we follow the explanation that is given whenever a controversy is raised, we can see the reasons why a certain decision is made. In general, we can say that the cases do not raise any issues or show pervasive unfairness in our system.
Secondly, I also wish to mention how this principle of fairness is something we see broadly in our judicial system including in the civil courts. I was a lawyer specialising in civil and divorce cases. I worked at a medium-sized law firm. The clients that come to see me for help come from different backgrounds. Many had modest incomes. Sometimes my client has to face a big company represented by a big firm. However, in my experience, the judge does not look at someone’s financial ability or skin colour and is always fair. Each party is given the opportunity to present facts and evidence.
I still remember, a few years ago, our client was a lady who had lost her husband. Her husband, a motorcyclist, was hit by a bus and later passed away. We made a claim against the bus driver and the bus company which were represented by a bigger firm. However, that was not a barrier to getting a fair trial. I was affected by that case because as we were going through the Court process, at one time, the woman became emotional and stated that she did not want any compensation but she wanted the other side to return her husband. It was sad to watch her situation but fortunately, the case was resolved.
Winning or losing does not depend on someone’s life status and a decision is made based on the truth, what took place and the prevailing laws. The justice system is indeed blind; it does not look at whether a person is rich or poor, man or woman, and it does not look at your race or religion.
However, it cannot be denied that there is a worry that if someone cannot afford it, he cannot get the advice and legal representation and this would affect his ability to present the best case to the judge. He may also be hampered by legal processes which are complicated and which he does not understand. This what is talked about when we discuss access to justice.
I was on the panel of the Legal Aid Bureau for a while and managed to help with a few divorce cases for those who could not afford legal costs. Many lawyers are actually volunteers and there are many schemes to help those who have legal problems.
Aside from that, the Court processes are often updated and simplified so as to reduce legal costs. For example, uncontested divorces can be processed more easily at the Family Justice Courts.
Are all the assistance schemes adequate? Of course, we should continue to improve the existing help channels. In particular, there is room to increase assistance given to those who may not meet the criteria for existing schemes. I had highlighted this issue in my past speeches in Parliament. I believe that this is a work in progress. But I feel that it is important for us to acknowledge that there are processes and channels for help in our current system.
One more matter that I would like to highlight is the hope and desire of our society to see justice and fairness in all aspects of our lives, not just in Court. We will feel angry if we see discrimination happen at the work place. We will voice our unhappiness if we see a group in difficulty that is not being helped. We do not want to see anyone in Singapore left behind.
Like I said earlier, there are certain values which are entrenched in our society and these values shape our way of life in Singapore. Because of this, many systems in our country exist based on our values. If there is an issue of discrimination at the workplace, for example, there is a channel to make a complaint and ask for justice. If we see someone needing help, there is a help channel, for example through the Social Service Office (SSO) that we can refer to. Indeed, there are many efforts and programmes created to ensure that the needy groups are supported to have a better life.
The open discussion today also reflects the efficacy of our systems. The debate in this Chamber shows the maturity of our society and the existence of space to voice opinions. If our systems are broken and fairness and independence do not exist, today’s discussion could not have happened.
Our systems are surely not perfect and there is much that we need to keep doing. While we try to find the shortcomings and improve our justice system, it is important to preserve our society’s and the world’s confidence in the transparency and integrity of our system. If we are not careful, we may be planting seeds of doubt dan in time, the trust in our systems will be eroded.
I would like to quote the words of Chief Justice in the Terence Siow case
He said: \"..there are few things more corrosive of the legitimacy of the judiciary, upon which the justice system is founded, than the perception that it is stacked in favour of any individual or class.\" The perception that the justice system favours a certain individual or group has the ability to chip away the legitimacy of our judicial system. This is true for all systems and institutions in this country. If a negative perception spreads, even though it is not based on facts, we will erode the trust of the people towards our systems and institutions.
We see many things happening in other countries where the trust in the key institutions of the country has disappeared. We cannot let this happen here. We have to ensure that our systems are always clean and transparent, but at the same time, we cannot just wantonly make baseless assumptions and damage people’s trust.
Therefore, although I agree with the call to continue improving any existing shortcoming, I feel that there needs to be a realisation and acknowledgment of the strength of our justice system, the existing continuous effort to increase its standards and the sincerity of the many officers who work in our institutions like the police and prosecutors who carry the responsibility to ensure the efficacy of our system.
I hope we can continue to uphold our existing systems and continue to protect it; and ensure that justice and equality continue to be the key foundations of our country.
A house is standing because of the joints
Which is cared for perfectly and well
A nation is strong with a promise
That our we guard our values with our hearts
(In English): Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir, for letting me participate in this debate. Let me start by trying to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I thank Ms Lim and Ms He for recognising that the criminal justice system, taken in totality, works well – they are not saying the system is broken or ineffective – and that Singapore is a safe place to raise children, and the justice system has been instrumental in achieving that and that our justice system enjoys a good reputation. I think various indices were cited.
So, let me try and deal with specific points but let me start off by saying the speeches I have heard, particularly from the Workers' Party. Now, I will come back to Mr Leong Mun Wai. I hope he is in the Chambers. I do not think he is. Okay. Maybe we will have another discussion.
I would say – with the Workers' Party and the points made – we are on the same page. In many ways, we are pushing at an open door. It is not that any of these principles are new or in some way not thought of or that we are opposed to them. I think in large measure, from the speeches that I heard, you are setting out positions of principle, which we have no problems with, but sitting on the front bench here, we also got to decide how to implement it and how to pay for it. And so, therein comes some of the implementation issues. If I may say, actually, the very first point I will take illustrates that very well.
Legally, I think Ms Lim, Ms He Ting Ru and maybe Mr Dennis Tan talked about the importance of legal aid, particularly for the poor. We cannot be more agreed on this. Of course, we want legal aid for the poor and we do have legal aid for the poor. As I said, CLAS covers 25% of resident households or is intended to.
But I have explained why I do not want to make legal aid mandatory. I explained to you by reference to the UK example – that the moment you make it mandatory, then what happens? People game the system too and people game the system in this way. They will not be able to find lawyers who can do it for the fee that the state is prepared to pay, or an extraordinarily exorbitant fee is required, or lawyers do not come forward. And because you cannot find the lawyer to handle the case, therefore the case gets postponed. And I gave you real-life examples from a first class jurisdiction – UK. This is not a figment of anyone's imagination. You have got to deal with that. I think rather than going the same paths that others have gone and gotten into minefields, we should try and make it work.
I will also share with you – I had it in my original text but I took it out because of the length – the experience of Australia and New Zealand. New South Wales in Australia offers a fully government-funded public defender's scheme. Two thirds of its cases are outsourced to private lawyers. Government expenditure on criminal legal aid has seen a 50% increase from 2015 to 2019. Every time I show these figures, my Finance Minister gives me a look.
Similarly, when we enhanced CLAS in 2014, we were not in a very difficult budgetary position but we were all projecting for a time when we would be in a difficult budgetary position. I did not want to get into a situation where we will just be required to write bigger and bigger cheques without taking into account public interest.
The reason why any Member here, with a child who is 10 years old, would dare to let their child take public transport is because of our law and order system. That is a very precious privilege. It is a privilege – every lady in this room will be able to take public transport at any time of the day and night. That is a fundamental human right. You will not be able to exercise that in any comparable city, anywhere in the world.
There is a reason for all of that. That is because cases get dealt with properly. Crime is low. We have kept crime low at a relatively low cost to the taxpayer. But I accept we must also help the poor when it comes to legal aid for criminal cases.
Let me tell you about the Australian example – the case of Lloyd Raynay. He was an experienced lawyer accused of murdering his wife, received legal aid in 2013. Cost to taxpayers of his defence was around $2.3 million. Do you believe that that person should get legal aid at that cost in Singapore? I do not think you do. So, we should move away from absolutist positions to say, \"How can we make it work?\", because we are both on the same side on this argument.
Paul Cohrs was accused of murdering his mother and brother in 2018. Close to $1.5 million dollars in assets. He was offered legal aid because his assets were frozen. Court cases get delayed – I am talking about Australia now – because lawyers refuse to take on legal aid cases. Legal aid rates were considered inadequate; cases being adjourned. Victims and witnesses are having to endure a long wait for justice and preparation by prosecutors and the police wasted.
In 2016, court cases against alleged murderers of underworld figures, Barbaro and Yilmaz, were put off for more than one year because legal aid rates were inadequate for suitable lawyers to take on the lengthy and complex case. The government introduced reforms in 2020 to ensure more sustainable legal aid budgets, including changes in fee structures, introduced fixed-sum lump-sum payments for less serious criminal matters. And guess what? The legal industry opposed it.
New Zealand. Fully government-funded public defender's scheme. The total cost rising by 62% from $101 million in 2006 and 2007 to $164 million in 2018 and 2019. There was an independent review of the system in 2009 led by a senior civil servant. She concluded the system was open to abuse, including lawyers who game the system. I am not suggesting that lawyers will necessarily game the system but you have these experiences elsewhere and you got to be careful about it.
They delayed plea or changed plea part way through the process, maximised legal aid payments. Lawyers demanded or accepted top-up payments from clients. To curb the bill, they expanded the public defender's scheme but that was also opposed by the bar.
We, thankfully, have a relationship with a bar which is more constructive. They do pro bono through CLAS but I have said that we are now considering how we can set up a public defender's office which would be sustainable. So, in principle, there is no issue. The question is – how do you implement it.
Second, I think there was a question of bail. I think Ms Lim wondered if the Bail Court was comatose or still in existence. It is functioning, alive and kicking. It is in the State Courts. Court 4A undertakes the role of the Bail Court. It handles the grant of, or review of, bail. The Court aims to ensure that the bail reviews are dealt with expeditiously, minimise – we are again on the same page – the time spent by accused persons in remand and balance against the need to ensure that the accused persons attend Court or are available when investigations are required.
Since 2018, increasing number of persons in remand are being released on a reduced bail with e-tagging – because we can use technology. Between January and July, more than 180 accused persons have been released on reduced bail with e-tagging. In 2018, I think some Members will recall that the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC was amended to specifically provide for e-tagging and the Police are generally prepared to consider allowing personal bonds in more cases. So, again, on the bail issue, I do not think there is divergence here.
Three, on people who cannot afford to pay fines. I think the situation that Ms Lim highlighted was that some people run up a series of regulatory offences and then they find themselves unable to pay and then have to turn up to Court for these matters.
It is a tough issue when it comes to this because, in principle, you have the laws, you need to enforce them.
I think everybody agrees that you need to enforce them. Because if you have laws and you have fines that can be imposed but if people can break the rules – it can be as simple as parking, if people can park without having to pay the fines and fines will not be collected – then, the system will slowly break down. We cannot have that. We have to impose the fines.
But, then, there are a group of people we all feel sympathetic towards because they cannot pay. The fact that they cannot pay the fines then lead some on to other situations which sort of snowball and we really do not want that. I think that is a situation where other kinds of safety nets will have to come and try and help them. This is where MSF comes in, the local Member of Parliament, or MP, comes in, for situations like that.
But where the agencies come across this, some agencies may be able to handle it but, generally, the agencies are not best placed to go and make distinctions between people – okay, you can pay the fine, you cannot pay the fine. I think we will very soon have a system that is dysfunctional. I think that sort of intervention has got to be an intervention from outside of the regulatory agency. But, in principle, we agree that there must be ways to try and find these people help.
Ms Lim also talked about how AGC sometimes – I am sure this is based on what the criminal bar has said because they have said this to me too – that officers sometimes prefer the most serious charge. I would put it this way. I think in the Parliament, when we debate like this, it is going to be general statements. If you say they should not put the most serious charge, of course, I agree. But we also agree that neither the Parliament nor MinLaw should be directing AGC on what charges are appropriate.
I think the starting point is what the Attorney-General has said at the Opening of Legal Year, which is that the DPPs ought to be told, and have been told, they are ministers of justice. They need to take an overview on this and they need to approach this with fairness. The Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General have regular discussions with the criminal bar. These are issues they can deal with.
Recording of statements – again, I think the starting point is the same. We must get accurate statements. It must be fair to the person being interviewed. It must be something that the person who is interviewed can understand. I do not think it is going to be possible – the Police are not going to be able to record it in the language the witness speaks. But fairness must be there. So, we need to have the right interpreter and we must emphasise to the IOs that – look, it is not a question of getting down and putting it in the way that you want. It has got to be what the person is saying. This is a constant endeavour.
I am sure Ms Lim has, I am sure others have – I have – we have all come across situations where lawyers tell us – well, the statement has been taken in a way that is not quite accurate. They say that. I think you have got to discount some of it because it is seen from a defence's perspective. But it has happened too.
So, this is something, as I said, the golden standard would be if we can have video recording but in my Ministerial Statement, I explained, or in my clarifications, I explained the difficulties that we are having. Not that we do not want to do it. Actually, doing it would help the Police. It is protective of the Police but we cannot do it. We cannot expand it because of the specific resource constraints that I spoke about.
There was a question on the level of legal training of IOs. The Police officers who take on the IO role do take some legal modules on investigative powers, drafting of charges and statement of facts, to understand the Evidence Act, the burden of proof, presumptions, on general law, on general training for trial preparation. None of that is going to make them a lawyer and, I think, again, the real answer is what one of the Members asked me earlier – how quickly can we put the AGC and Police officers together early in the investigations so that there is that legal guidance?
It is a serious resource issue. The size of AGC is small. The size of the Police's IOs is small. To try and put them together to deal with these thousands of cases, is not going to be easy.
Ms Lim said something which I heartily agree with – that the specific Police IO in Ms Liyani's case does not become a scape-goat. I will start out by saying that we do not scape-goat people, but when I come to the Parliament, I cannot shy away from saying what has happened. I cannot shy away from saying that unfortunately – I did say \"unfortunately\" – he will have to face disciplinary inquiry. In my original statement, I actually said I am personally very sympathetic to the IO.
The Police were very uncomfortable with that because they take the disciplinary inquiry seriously and their view was that if the Minister says that, then it creates difficulties for them. But I am very sympathetic to the IO because we are all looking at this with hindsight and with a huge microscope, day by day.
So, I do say, \"Poor chap\". But rules are rules. He was there. He did not do it for five weeks. There are certain consequences. He is in an unfortunate situation. But I entirely agree.
Ms Lim also asked about instalment payments for fines. I have said it in the House here. I think we should try when people have difficulties in making payments to allow them to pay in instalments. The difficulty again is to distinguish between who can afford and who cannot afford. We do not want to go down the route of setting up another mechanism, more resources to go and check that. But subject to that, I have given directions earlier this year to the Police to consider in which areas we can go, for possibility of instalment payments on fines.
There were some points about young people, what sort of assistance they get when Police interview them, amongst others. Actually, for those who have not been following closely our criminal justice system and our system of imprisonment or incarceration, there has been a sea change in approach. Today, for example, the Prisons service tags itself as Captains of Lives. They are no longer prison wardens. When the people come in, the statistics show that there is a high likelihood of recidivism when they go out. They are going to come back again. So, our task is to actually be with them and make sure as much as possible that they do not come back. We do a lot of intervention when they are in there.
We actually want to go earlier, upstream, do not even let them become prisoners, do not even let them get into trouble. What can we do upstream? And we want to look as much as possible, for people who infringe or who have committed some offence. We want to see how we can move them away from the penal system to a more guidance programme for rehabilitation. So, the primary focus, if I can use one word to describe our system today, it is to focus on rehabilitation.
Which is why the very significant changes on first- and second-time drug users were put through legislation. And Parliament agreed with it.
So, for young people, we have diversionary programmes for those who commit minor offences. In the past four years, four to five hundred guidance programmes cases a year. Completion rate has been about 80% to 90%. We also have a guidance programme for young offenders who commit less serious sexual offences, like possession of obscene films and so on. We give them Adolescence Sexuality Treatment.
The Streetwise Programme is a voluntary programme for wayward young people. And we have an enhanced Streetwise Programme. For those involved in minor gang-related offences, they are sent to these programmes.
Our approach today is first, we try and prevent them from getting into Prison. Second, if they commit some offence, as far as possible, we put them in different tracks. We do psychological assessment. Even if they have to serve time, then, we see whether they have to serve the full time or whether they can be put through different programmes and then, put in halfway houses to the extent possible – of course, depending on the nature of the offence.
So, that has been the approach and if Members are interested, we can give them a specific, more in-depth briefing. But there has been a very significant change in approach here.
Ms Lim talked about victims in a couple of specific cases. Ms Lim, Ms He Ting Ru will accept, I do not know the facts, I do not know why specifically the matter was not proceeded with. All I know from what has been said in Parliament is that AGC advised that it cannot be proceeded with. Beyond that, I do not know anything else and I cannot comment on it.
There are always two sides to every story and we will have to ask AGC why it did not proceed.
Ms He said that defence lawyers face unequal access to witnesses and evidence. Again, in principle, I agree there should be fair access. What is fair, how do you detail what is fair, there might be a difference of views. It was not quite clear to me what exactly she said. But I am setting out a matter of principle here.
Access to counsel, I have dealt with earlier.
Ms He Ting Ru also talked about compensation for miscarriage of justice. I think in principle, if it is a vexatious case, if it should never have been brought, compensation ought to be paid. But on a regular basis, if every case, the state loses, you have got to pay compensation, then, I think I would take a different approach and a different view. I do think that would create chilling effect on prosecution. But I do not think that is what Ms He was suggesting.
Mr Dennis Tan expressed his concern about the young and the poor. I say for the record, we are all concerned. Mr Dennis Tan is not the only one who is concerned. I think his concern is legitimate but we are all concerned.
He also spoke about judicial training and he spoke about this point about rotation between the different parts of the Legal Service. I have given a very full answer and I have said that these matters are dealt with by various boards headed by the Chief Justice. He decides, together with his board, and there is, I described the Personnel Board for Judges and Personnel Board for Legal Service Officers.
Mr Tan also spoke about qualifications of Judicial Officers. These are matters for the Legal Service Commission. They will take into account. I told you about the Judicial Personnel Board. They will deal with it and choose. I think he got some of his facts wrong. The point he made about one year for Magistrates and three years for District Judges, or DJs – that is only possible when the Chief Justice is of the opinion that the person is suitable. Otherwise, the normal process is three years for Magistrates and seven years for District Judges.
In the State Courts today, we have 55 Judicial Officers who hear criminal cases. All are qualified persons who are at least seven years. I stand corrected – these are the figures I have been given. If it is inaccurate in any way, I will let Mr Dennis Tan know.
And training of Judicial Officers, again, I agree with Mr Tan, and it is already being done, as he will probably know – Singapore Judicial College. And Mr Tan agrees that this is a good development.
Mr Pritam Singh talks about disclosure, setting up a statutory framework on what needs to be disclosed. I think specific on Kadar vs Public Prosecutor, Mr Singh would recall, that I told this House that it is good in principle, the Kadar case, and should be followed. Maybe Mr Singh does not recall, but that is what I said.
So, the Government is absolutely ad idem with Mr Singh on this point.
Looking at setting out the disclosure requirements in statute, I am happy to tell him that, knowing that he is going to raise it today, we have been discussing it since early this year, internally. It has started with MHA; it is being discussed. I think it is unsatisfactory that it is left as a common law principle. So, we are going to put it out in statute – what is appropriate, what is fair, how do you framework it, which are the cases and principles you take. It is being discussed with various stakeholders; we have not discussed with the bar yet. I think we have discussed it with Supreme Court, I cannot remember specifically.
It has been something that we have been discussing since early this year. But this small event of COVID-19 has put many of these things out of kilter. So, a little bit more time is being taken.
Mr Singh also talked about how do counsel discuss relevance and non-relevance. I think all I can say to him is, AGC officers have an over-arching duty as ministers of justice. Mr Singh and I cannot be telling them what to disclose and what not to disclose. But the principles are clear. Again, as I have said, we will put it out in statutory form. So, he is pushing at an open door on this.
Ms Lim talked about more means for seeking compensation. I think she knows 2010, we amended the CPC to require the Courts to actively consider. Because we felt that while we had given the Courts the power to order compensation, we did not see enough cases where compensation was being awarded. So, I actually decided that we had to go further.
So, in 2018, the law was further amended and now, the Courts are required to give reasons if compensation is not awarded, where it has the power to do so. That requires an active consideration. Victims are there in a criminal case. Rather than requiring the victims to start another proceedings, decide then and there how much money should be paid. But if for some reason, you think that no money ought to be paid, you set out your reasons.
So, victims will be able to participate in the process by making submissions. It is really meant for simpler cases. The criminal Courts are not equipped to deal with complex hearings which are dealt with by civil Courts. And we also should be careful about dragging out proceedings because there is a knock-on effect on the Courts’ ability to deal with other cases.
The Courts have also been empowered to order compensation to the dependants of a person whose death was caused by an offence. For example, for bereavement and funeral expenses.
So, those are the points I wanted to cover. There are other points which I am sure some other colleagues will cover.
Coming back to Mr Leong Mun Wai and the Committees of Inquiry, he will recall the earlier exchange. He has agreed that there was no issue he could identify and there was no need for a Committee of Inquiry, or a Commission of Inquiry. But now, he has reversed himself and says, I suppose an hour or so in between, has helped him to recall why he wanted it in the first place.
Mr Leong, let me put it this way. You are quite wrong in saying this is an internal review by agencies. Let me explain. First, it has gone through a very public process with detailed cross-examination and an examination in the minute, a forensic examination of all the issues. Every possible issue relating to the Police, and AGC, and the evidence has been dealt with in great detail in public, in cross-examination and in submissions. So, what is it that you want from a review that has not been publicly set out?
Then, you have a High Court Judge who sets out his judgment and has set out what he said were the issues. So, you have got a judgment from a High Court, setting out, “This is where I felt that Police were lacking and this is where I think the AGC was lacking”. So, we had that process, which is, I think he would accept, an independent process.
Next, as regard to AGC, that is going to go for another Disciplinary Tribunal. And the officers will give account of what they did. It will be dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal or DT, and if the DT feels that there is a case to answer and it needs to be referred, it goes up to the Court of Three Judges. Or the DT dismisses it – whatever it is, that is another independent inquiry. So, that deals with the AGC part of your requirement for the Commission of Inquiry.
Then, the Police. Three specific issues were identified: translation and two other issues. I have dealt with them, the three issues.
You see, the duties of Members of Parliament, is not to come and repeat whatever is outside but to apply our mind, take whatever feedback there is, crystallise it, apply it to the facts, listen to the arguments on the other side, and then say, “Yes, I see all these; now, I will tell you what it is.”
Because if you ask for a Commission of Inquiry, it is because you are not happy with something. You feel that there is a reasonable basis for having an inquiry into something. So, you need to tell us which part of this requires further inquiry.
I will answer your other points, but perhaps I can invite you to answer that.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Minister for giving me the chance to learn further.
When we look at this case, basically, it is a case where there are a number of possible systematic faults across this case. For example, from the Police to the AGC – you admitted there were lapses. And the AGC, there is a case that is still in the Courts now. And now, you have also disclosed or have said that the behaviour of some of the plaintiffs is not credible.
So, there are all these things. If there are so many of these problems, at every stage of the process, there is supposed to be a check on the problem. The way I listened to what you have said, now it seems that the problem is like being drilled down to a poor guy in the Police force. That cannot be the case. If one person makes a mistake, the next stage of the process is supposed to check on that and then stop the mistake from carrying on.
So, to a layman like me – as I have said, I am not a legal expert – and probably the average Singaporean in society, we will think that, eh, the whole process, why nothing stops this process from carrying on, making the poor Ms Liyani suffer for four years?
Mr K Shanmugam: If I could ask you, Mr Leong, I have heard about the four years. I will come back to the four years. Can you just help me because I have said we are happy to have – not happy – but we are prepared to have a commission of inquiry. I did say the officers involved will face Police disciplinary inquiry. Of course, the supervisor will face the disciplinary inquiry, too, because of the five weeks. So, we have settled the five weeks. So, what is it that requires the commission of inquiry? What is troubling you now? Do not give generalities. What, specifically, is the issue?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. We think that the systemic failures that I have—
Mr K Shanmugam: What is the systemic failure?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: The systemic failure is like what I have explained just now – why, in the process, was there no stopper? It just goes on and on. So, if this poor policeman makes the wrong investigation—
Mr K Shanmugam: What went on and on?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Basically, from the Police, it went on to the AGC.
Mr K Shanmugam: Wait, stop, please. The five weeks are a Police issue. It did not go on to anyone else. AGC issue, where it happened at trial, will be dealt with by a Disciplinary Tribunal. So, what is it about the Police – beyond the five weeks?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: You actually mentioned that there were some lapses in the treatment of the evidence. So, the five weeks. When this five-week thing happened, why did the superior officer in the Police force, for example, not identify the problem? And when this moved to AGC to make the prosecution—
Mr K Shanmugam: So, wait. Let us deal with the five weeks. I have told you that the IO and the supervisor were wrong and will be dealt with by way of a Disciplinary Tribunal. What is that you propose – what is your allegation? Are you suggesting that they did not do it because of improper influence? If so, say it and we will have a commission of inquiry.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I am not saying that that is definitely the case.
Mr K Shanmugam: Okay, then tell me why we need a commission of inquiry.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Like what I have said, Minister, if a junior officer had done something, why was it not checked by a senior officer, and then the senior officer—
Mr K Shanmugam: The senior officer is now going to face a Disciplinary Inquiry, too.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Then this senior officer made a mistake, this whole thing goes to AGC.
Mr K Shanmugam: So, let us leave the Police alone. That is what the Police did.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: There was a lapse, unless we are suggesting or we have reason to believe. Let me tell you this.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay.
Mr K Shanmugam: In any system – and you have been in organisations – there will be lapses.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: Lapses do not equate to Commissions of Inquiry. Lapses equate to disciplinary proceedings. Commission of inquiry is if there is something larger.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: You are not suggesting – it is good that you have disavowed any suggestion of improper influence. I am happy that you have said that. So, once we accept that, then the question is, on these facts—and I have told you 10% of the cases succeed on appeal. I have told you there is another case where there was a break in the chain of custody. We cannot be having Commissions of Inquiry each time the High Court says that the Police have made a mistake. So, the reason why I was prepared to recommend a commission of inquiry was because I felt your suggestion was Mr Liew had improper influence. But now that you have disavowed that—
Mr Leong Mun Wai: We are not saying that, yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, thank you. And, therefore, in terms of how the Police handled it, the two officers – maybe more than two, or whether there were other IOs who have dealt with it at different times – that is a matter for the Police. Internal matter. And you would have heard me saying I welcome Ms Sylvia Lim's point. We do not want to make a scapegoat of this young officer. But, you know, rules are rules. He will be dealt with. So, leave aside the Police. There is no basis for a commission of inquiry against the Police.
For AGC, there is no basis for doing a commission of inquiry because if you accept that the AGC officers' conduct will be dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal, they will go into it – why they did it, what they did – you have got your independent inquiry. So, we do not need a commission of inquiry.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Like you said just now, Minister, in an organisation, when we do a cross-department investigation, sometimes, in the organisation when things like, for example, the Operations Department makes a mistake and the Finance Department—
Mr K Shanmugam: This inquiry internally was done by the CID, which is external to the IOs, and the next level of disciplinary proceedings will also be done properly and I did say to Mr Pritam Singh, if he was interested, I will let him know what the results are. But I need to go and check the law as to whether I am entitled to tell him.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay.
Mr K Shanmugam: All right. So, I think you will be good enough to agree that if those are the concerns, there is no basis for a commission of inquiry? Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Minister. We thought that the systemic faults alone are enough to be a basis for the inquiry. But after your explanation, okay, we are prepared to accept that you have done a thorough investigation of the situation already, then we will withdraw our proposal for the inquiry.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you very much, Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Mr K Shanmugam: Okay. Now I am left with nothing else to answer. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Then we do not need the Leader now. [Laughter.] Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for Minister on what he has just said.
The first clarification concerns his response to my suggestion on the recording of statements in languages other than English. He mentioned that while he does not think that that can be done, of course, he also said that I think the gold standard was video recording. But I would also like to highlight that, in the UK, actually, they do have provision in their Police and Criminal Evidence Act that when an accused person wants to give a cautioned statement in a language other than English, that the police will record the statement in that language and later on an English translation will be provided. I wanted to highlight that other countries have done it. So, I hope that he will not close his mind to the matter. And if this could be done – that means, recording the text of the statement in a language other than English – I think that would greatly increase reliability. That is the first clarification.
The second clarification is what he mentioned in response to my point on the victims. The two cases which I have mentioned, of course, I am not expecting the Government to comment on the merits of the cases. My reason for bringing them up is to highlight that no reasons were given to the victims for the decisions made and, more generally, to advocate for greater recognition in the Singapore system of the role of victims as stakeholders. And based on these two cases – and there are many others as well – it is clear that victims do feel disempowered and I think we can do better to recognise their role as stakeholders in the system.
Mr K Shanmugam: I do not really have a quarrel with either point. I think the recording of statements other than English, I know that Police have said, and I have a lot of sympathy for them that they have difficulties. We will look at the other countries and their models. But I have expressed the hope we are waiting for artificial intelligence and video-to-text automatically. We have looked at some, but they are not yet mature technologies.
On the second point of the role of victims as stakeholders, I think Ms Sylvia Lim would have heard me say, in fact, I have pushed for that. In fact, in 2018, we amended the law so that victims would be given compensation or the Courts would have to explain why they are not being given compensation, if the Courts so choose not to. But we will see where else the right role of victims can be better protected. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: I thank the Minister for his response. I just have one point of clarification. Is the Minister saying that jurisdiction with more legal aid or a more beefed-up legal aid system will lead to bad outcomes? Are there not ways that we can expand our system or having safeguards to make sure that the abuses that he cited do not happen and that costs do not spiral out of control? Thank you.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thanks, Ms He. I was corrected by the Prime Minister that I had mispronounced your name.
I think the answer to both questions is, no, I am not saying any of those things. Again, I said we are on the same page. I believe like you that the poor should get legal assistance. We are doing it. I have said that I do not find the current system satisfactory and that we have been discussing for some time how we can do it better. I was addressing my remarks to some of the statements that you made but which were a little bit more absolutist – like this is a human right, this is cast in stone, it has to be done – and I pointed out that some of those may lead us into alleyways and byways which others have found themselves in and then we will get stuck in the weeds, and we would not be able to come back. So, we need to avoid those traps, but try and achieve the objective in a way that will make the Finance Minister reasonably comfortable. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to speak on this topic based on my personal experience.
My second posting in the Legal Service was at AGC. This involved significant decisions whether or not to prosecute a person or to charge a person. Let me give you an example. One of the cases I had prosecuted was to do with rioting. The facts of the case were that there appeared to be a riot in a foreign worker dormitory. Five foreign workers were charged for rioting. They were watching a sports match. Things got tense and people started to fight. But I was not sure whether one of them was even part of the fight. As a DPP, I raised the question to my superior that rather than being part of the fight, I thought that the foreign worker in question was trying to break up the fight. I was instructed to interview the foreign worker. I asked to do a site visit where the fight happened, in order to get a sense of the evidence. That was a foreign worker dormitory. In the end, we formed the collective view that, indeed, this man was innocent and had actually tried to break up the fight.
I went to Court as a DPP to ask for a discharge amounting to an acquittal for the foreign worker. He was set free because of AGC's application for a discharge amounting to an acquittal. That, to me, was my experience of the AGC – the integrity of the AGC. It is so easy to tar an institution, but I feel that, on the whole, AGC is an excellent institution, made up of good officers and I want to stand up and say that today. [Applause.]
In the example I gave, the foreign worker did not have a defence counsel. So, the decision-making was all borne on the shoulders of the DPPs in question and the superiors we reported to.
One has to appreciate within AGC the intense nature of the work, the huge number of investigation papers, evidence and statements, and on top of that, having to run trials, attend plea of guilt mentions and pre-trial conferences. It is tough work, as Minister Shanmugam said, it is dynamic. There is so many pressures and each decision has sometimes life or liberty of a person in question.
The second point, Sir, I would like to make is that a lot has been said about the trial Judge who handled the case at first instance in the State Courts. Here, I would also like to speak up for the system and see that there is indeed a lot of pressure on Judges. Many factors weigh in the Judge's mind.
Firstly, is the person guilty, beyond reasonable doubt? Then, the Judge needs to ask if indeed the person is guilty. What is a fair and just sentence? How does one tamper justice with mercy in a sentence? And in sentencing, there can be so many permutations. Again, I say this in this House with some level of experience – notwithstanding that experience as a very junior judicial officer – my first posting in the Legal Service, before AGC.
The Judge could be guided by retribution, which is a form of punishment. Or the Judge can be guided by deterrence which is to deter the accused or others from doing the same offence. Or a judge could opt for rehabilitation because he or she sees the sincerity in the offender and feels that he or she should be given a second chance to rehabilitate. Or the Judge can opt for restorative justice – which is my favourite type of justice – where the offender is given a chance to apologise for his or her mistakes and the relationship is restored between the accused and the victim.
Therefore, in addition to needing to weigh up evidence, that is, whether the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt or whether he or she should be acquitted, the Judge needs to decide what rationale of sentencing to apply. And so, judging is not easy. It is not easy and we have many excellent State Court Judges.
We will never be finished trying to improve the system. That is a constant. One listens to the Minister and all the speeches – we are all trying to improve the system, yes. But we have got a good foundation here. And there have been significant policy improvements over the years which I am aware of as counsel in private practice – which I declare to you, Mr Speaker.
For example, over the years, we have introduced the video recording of statements by an accused. We have expanded the criminal case disclosure regime by having access to more information, the defence would be able to better prepare a more accurate case. We have allowed video recorded statements to be adduced as verbal evidence under certain circumstances to reduce the trauma of vulnerable victims. We have introduced provisions allowing certain vulnerable victims to testify, shielded from the accused. We have introduced provisions to ensure that the victim's identity in an offence under the Children and Young Persons Act is held in strict confidence. And we have introduced more comprehensive offences to tackle the seriousness of child pornography and child abuse content.
Therefore, we do have a good system, Sir. This particular case has shown that there are still areas for improvement and I am heartened that the agencies will be reflecting on this case. I have every confidence that we can continue working from a good solid base towards a fair justice system for all.
So, we have a good system, Sir. It may need improving, but it is a good system nonetheless. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, migrant workers face a unique set of challenges when navigating the justice system due largely to their low socio-economic status in our society. Many of the problems they face will be in addition to those faced by low-income Singaporeans, which my Workers' Party's colleagues in this House have highlighted.
First, I would like to discuss the challenges faced by migrant workers who are victims of abuse, salary non-payment or other offences.
Migrant workers face steep power imbalances when dealing with employers and Government authorities. They are in a foreign land and may not speak our local languages well. They are far from their families and their friends back home. Some migrant domestic workers do not even have a local support network because they have limited interaction with peers outside of their employers' homes. They are unfamiliar with our local laws and customs and often do not know their rights.
When faced with a situation where they are mistreated or denied their salaries, they may hesitate to make reports to the authorities. This was the case for Miss Khalifa, a maid from Indonesia who endured six months of horrific abuse at the hands of her employers in 2012. She was sent back to Indonesia just as she was due for a medical check-up and chose not to tell the immigration officers of the abuse as she was happy to finally escape it. It was only when she returned to her village in Indonesia that her family discovered her injuries and made a report.
Migrant workers in these situations are often caught between a rock and a hard place. If they choose not to report the wrongdoing, it may continue or their perpetrators may get away scot-free. If they choose to report the offence and their case is taken up by the authorities, they will have to remain in Singapore to assist in the investigations and cannot immediately return to their loved ones at home.
The legal process takes time. For maid abuse cases that go to Court, the investigation alone can take at least a year while the trial could take another year, not to mention appeals. By the time the final sentence is passed, the entire process may have taken two years or more. In the meantime, the worker may not be able to work to earn a living. This can be financially ruinous as they are often the sole breadwinners of a large family back home.
While victims for assisting in investigations are issued with a special pass to remain in Singapore, this does not grant them an automatic right to work. They are still required to seek permission from the investigating authorities before working. Fortunately, in most cases, permission is granted for victims. However, this work may not come easily. Many employers may be hesitant to employ migrant domestic workers who are assisting in Police investigations. Some victims may be so traumatised by the abuse that they do not wish to risk being in such a dangerous situation again. They also have to look for a place to stay. The burden of sheltering them currently falls mainly on non-government organisations or NGOs.
Taking a step back, there are other factors which may give migrant workers great pause before they make a brave move to report their abuse.
First, many come from countries where corruption and abuse of authority is rife. This could make them inherently distrustful of authorities. Some may even need to be assured that Police officers in Singapore will not demand a bribe to take up their case.
Second, the employers may sometimes make or threaten to make counter-accusations against them, for example, accusing them of theft or damaging company property.
Third, in cases where there is no physical abuse, but strong elements of coercion or psychological abuse, the investigation might end with a warning but no punishment for the employers.
In all of these cases, the end result for the worker would likely be termination of their current employment and repatriation to their home countries.
The cost of premature repatriation is tremendous for these workers to find work in Singapore. They would have incurred thousands of dollars of debts owed to recruitment agents in their home countries. They would have to spend months, sometimes years, paying off these debts on the back up low salaries in Singapore. Being terminated and terminated and sent home will saddle them with huge debts, not to mention a loss of income and embarrassment for their families.
At the end of the whole trial, even if the perpetrator is convicted, the victim may not be financially compensated for the full extent of what they had suffered. While it is good that there is now a compensation framework for victims, this is not guaranteed as the perpetrator can escape payment of compensation by serving a jail term in lieu or claiming bankruptcy.
I will now move on to the challenges faced by migrant workers accused of crimes while in Singapore.
The same language hurdles encountered by victims are also faced by those accused of crimes. This was the case for Ms Parti Liyani who, according to the High Court judgment, was interviewed for some of her statements by investigators in a mix of English and Bahasa Melayu while she spoke Bahasa Indonesia. Her recorded statements were read back to her in English and translated into Bahasa Melayu by the Investigation Officer or IO. No Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was present for the recording of four of her statements.
During cross-examination in Court, the IO conceded that there was a difference between Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia, and admitted that he could have understood Ms Liyani's statements in Bahasa Indonesia differently from what she had meant.
Justice Chan Seng Onn, in his judgment, also said that the likelihood similarly existed that Ms Liyani could have misunderstood the IO's questions during the interview and recorded statements read back to her differently from what the IO had meant. He was thus satisfied that there was a reasonable doubt in relation to the accuracy of the translation for two of the statements.
Accused workers also need to remain in Singapore to assist with investigations. Ms Liyani was arrested on 2 December 2016 and spent almost four years in a shelter managed by the NGO, HOME. While waiting for her case to be concluded, she was fortunate that HOME was able to find someone to post bail of $15,000 for her.
Most migrant workers accused of crimes may not be able to secure such a bailar. They faced a similar dilemma as victims when deciding whether to plead guilty or claim trial. Should they plead guilty, the time it takes for them to serve their sentence may be shorter than the time it takes to go through the Court process if they claim trial.
Ms Liyani was sentenced by the State Court to 26 months in prison, which was less than the four years she spent waiting for the outcome of the case. This presents an invidious choice for them. Even if they know that they are innocent, bizarrely, it is actually expedient for the migrant worker to plead guilty even if they did no wrong. But is justice served this way?
Should they claim trial, they may not find a lawyer and will certainly not be able to afford one.
The Minister for Law has mentioned that Ms Liyani's fees would have come up to $150,000. Criminal legal aid is available but not by default as they need to pass means and merits test. Even if they do, they may still not be able to find a lawyer willing to take up their case pro bono.
My Liyani was very fortunate to have a Singaporean lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani, representing her pro bono at the trial and the appeal. Justice Chan commended Mr Anil for showing much skill and dedication in his work for this case.
I would now like to share some proposals on how we can make the justice system fairer for migrant workers who have to go through it, either as victims or accused persons.
First, we have to tackle the upstream problems, which severely hamper their bargaining power vis-a-vis their employers and contribute to their unwillingness to report abuse. We must find ways to reduce the high recruitment fees that migrant workers need to pay agents to find a job in Singapore. If workers do not feel such a sense of obligation to their employer because of a need to pay back exorbitant fees to recruiters, they will be more likely to report abuse when it happens.
I shared one solution to this during September's debate on the President's Address – to create a jobs portal that advertises all open positions for migrant workers. The positions should be open to only Singaporeans for a period of, say, two weeks before being extended to foreigners. With increasing IT savviness, migrant workers can even search for such positions from their home countries and apply directly. This move towards jobs transparency would cut out the middleman and reduce the need to pay exploitative fees to recruitment agents.
Second, support services should be provided to all workers who choose to make complaints against employers and find themselves without a home and a job. It should not be left entirely to NGOs and their limited resources. This support should include the provision of basic needs like food and shelter, counselling services and help on understanding their rights.
Third, every individual, local or foreign, should have access to legal representation. If they cannot afford a lawyer, legal aid should be made available to them. To prevent abuse, means testing could be done so that only those who are in genuine need will have their legal fees covered. I note that Minister said earlier that the public defender's office is under consideration. I welcome this and I hope that this will be pursued further.
And fourth, once the Court orders a payment of compensation to the victim, the system must ensure that the victim receives that payment. Victims should not be left high and dry, just because the convicted person is unable to pay. If necessary, a fund could be set up to ensure that victims are guaranteed to receive the compensation amount ordered by the Court.
In 2014, the AGC announced that it had formed an internal working group to focus on improving Court processes involving abused migrant workers. It mentions several areas it was looking at, including: one, exploring how to help more foreign maids get compensation for the losses they incur after they stop working because of abuse; two, improving Court processes involving abused foreign workers; three, securing medical reports and witness statements more quickly; four, persuading the Courts to fix early hearing dates; and five, expanding the use of compensation orders to help more maids obtain compensation for losses resulting from a criminal offence committed against them.
It has been six years since this announcement. What is the outcome of this working group? And what were their final proposals and which of them have been implemented?
Mr Speaker, migrant workers are among the most disadvantaged members of our society. Even though they are foreigners, they are an integral part of our society – looking after our children and elderly and building our skyscrapers and roads. As a developed country, it is our duty to ensure that they have equal access to justice if they suffer abuse or are accused of wrongdoing. Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my colleagues have discussed at length why the experience of many Singaporeans with respect to the justice system may differ from our aspirations for fair and equal access to justice as a society.
I actually wish to take a step back and ask the question of not so much where some areas within the system appear to fall short, but why we should care about the overall efficaciousness of the judicial system, which goes far beyond the events surrounding Parti Liyani's case.
Sir, I will share with this House, the concerns my colleagues have raised are not just a matter for jurisprudence. It is also a bread and butter issue that has implications for the business competitiveness and economic viability of our nation
Over the past decade, there has in fact been an erosion in the rule of law worldwide for which Singapore has sadly not been exempt because the success of the rule of law relies on the confidence of those who participate in it. It is crucial that our justice system does not merely provide for its reliability, but actually be perceived to be so.
Let me begin with a story of fence. This fence divides the city of Nogales in the State of Sonora, from the city of Nogales in the State of Arizona. Up until the First World War, Nogales was essentially one city. In 1918, armed conflict between the army and militia led to the construction of the first permanent border. Despite the shared history, culture and geography, the fate of those who lived on either side of the Nogales fence could not have been more different.
In Arizona, household incomes amount to about $30,000 a year, most teenagers are in school and life expectancy is relatively high by global standards. Residents are able to go about their daily activities with little fear for their lives or their property. Yet just a few feet away, in Sonora, however, most teenagers do not complete high school and most adults do not possess a high school certificate. Health conditions are poor with mothers worrying about the survival of their infants. And in contrast to their neighbours in the north, the rule of law is weak, with endemic crime and significant risks involved in the starting and running of businesseses.
This story, retold by economist Daron Acemoglu and political scientist James Robinson in their book \"Why Nations Fail\", underscores the importance of legal, political institutions, such as the rule of law in shaping economic outcomes. In particular, the authors argue that when institutions are inclusive, when decision-making is shared by many and the system is subject to robust checks and balances, human flourishing is allowed the room it needs to succeed, thereby bringing progress and prosperity for nations that subscribe to such quality institutions.
Singapore has historically distinguished Itself by being an island, literally and figuratively, of institutional stability in a sea of tumultuous institutional change. As a Crown Colony, we inherited a sophisticated legal system and chose to adhere to this conception of the rule of law following Independence. This choice has generally served us well, both from the perspective of natural justice and because the rule of law has been an important cornerstone that has underpinned our business and commercial activities.
We must guard against taking this inheritance for granted. Globally, the rule of law is in retreat. According to the World Justice Project, which my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim, cited earlier on, adherence to the rule of law has fallen for the third consecutive year since 2017. The World Bank's Governance Indicators also document an erosion in the rule of law since 1996 for developed and developing countries alike. Countries in Central Europe have experienced particularly marked declines in their adherence to the rule of law. Closer to our neighbourhood, a number of nations in ASEAN have also experienced reductions.
Although as Minister Shanmugam has argued, Singapore remains highly ranked, we sadly have not been exempt from this trend. We have seen a decline in indicators of the rule of law over time. The World Justice Project's assessments of the quality of civil and criminal justice fell to the lowest it has ever been since scores were first compiled in 2012. Our judicial independence as adjudged by the World Economic Forum continues to slide from its peak in 2008.
Mr Speaker, although documenting the roll-back in such called quantitative indicators of the rule of law may seem like an abstract exercise, they are in fact the lived reality for many. Indeed, the different measures of the rule of law are often constructed from the reported perceptions of the public and society at large, of the quality of their day-to-day interactions of citizens with the legal system, their sense of whether contracts are enforced, whether property rights are respected and whether the police and judges are trustworthy. This is why careful reviews such as what this Motion is calling for, are so important because they can restore the confidence of the public in the inherent fairness of the legal process. The objective is to ensure that there is a consistency between the intent of the existing laws on the books, what is sometimes referred to as the jury system, and the perceptions of how the law is practised, the de facto system.
If the gap in perceptions becomes too large, the rule of law risks becoming disconnected and hence, discounted by the public to the detriment of more than just justice per se. This is precisely why so many Members in this House have discussed the importance that the rule of law not just be done but be perceived to be done.
Now, when the rule of law is compromised, economic performance suffers. There is abundant empirical evidence that asserts this relationship. Deteriorations in the rule of law affect in particular domestic as well as foreign investment activity, as well as productivity and growth. Put simply, when people are insecure about the rule of law, they invest less, they produce less; and even when they work and invest, they are less productive.
Mr Speaker, most of us are keenly aware of the enormous success of South Korea over the past half century. We drive Kia and Hyundai cars. We watch movies on LG and Samsung TVs and smart phones, and many of us, including my dear mother and sister, go crazy over Kpop and Korean TV dramas.
What many of us may be less familiar with is that at the time of partition, it was North Korea that was the more prosperous half, the more industrialised part of the peninsula. Yet today, the city of Seoul itself produces more than 10 times the economic product of the entire economy of North Korea. There are, of course, many reasons for the ultimate difference in economic outcomes of the two regions, but one major factor was that the North chose to pursue an institutional path that failed to respect the importance of the rule of law while the South continued to do so.
So, when we flag concerns of fairness, excess and independence in Singapore's justice system, we are not merely talking about the alleged judicial missteps of the Parti Liyani case or about other cases of potential lapses in the fairness of the justice system, which my colleagues have mentioned. It is also about the divergent fortunes of the Nogales and Koreas of the world. And when we underscore the importance of the rule of law, we are not only trafficking in the realm of our shared notions of justice, but our common economic future as well. With that parting thought, I assert my support for the Motion.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I recognise that fairness, access and independence are indeed cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. With that in mind, I have some proposals that I believe will help strengthen our criminal justice system. Many of what I will share has been discussed previously, but I hope to share further points in detail on some of these proposals.
My first point is about the Appropriate Adult Scheme that I raised in my Parliamentary Question that Minister addressed earlier. But can I appeal to the Government to re-consider and include foreign domestic workers for a start under this scheme and not all work permit holders? The scheme allows an independent and trained adult to accompany vulnerable groups who have to give statements to the Police. It is meant to ensure that the vulnerable person is not misunderstood during the interview.
It makes sense to also include FDWs into the scheme. After all, when we recently raised penalties for crimes against vulnerable people, we did specifically include FDWs as a class of vulnerable people. I completely understand the tremendous workload of our Police officers. So, may I suggest that MHA work with the NGOs for this and it might help ease the workload a little. I would be glad to help facilitate this process.
My second point is about video recording, and Minister has addressed this point significantly. All I am asking is whether MHA could share the timeline for the full implementation of this video recording. Hopefully, this can take place sooner rather than later.
My third point is about language interpretation. Can we ensure that all suspects are provided an interpreter in their own language and not just in a language that they understand, which the Minister has mentioned earlier? The key words here are \"in their own language\", which is used in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in some sections.
We need to enhance the CPC. The Code is vague. It states that people who do not understand English should be provided interpretation in a language they understand. It provides no clarity on what is the standard of \"understanding\" and who gets to determine it.
Sir, it is clear that we need to tighten the Code to ensure there is no misunderstanding during the course of Police interviews. I propose that we set high but reasonable standards for language interpretation during Police interviews.
First, all Police interviews start with the Investigation Officer (IO) informing suspects that they can request for an interpreter. Second, the suspect should be provided an interpreter in their own language. They should get to declare what this language is and this should be officially recorded. Third, the interpreter should have professional certification or relevant experience to ensure their services rendered are of suitable quality. Fourth, new rules should be introduced to mandate that interpreters follow certain protocols. For one, they should stick strictly to interpretation and avoid providing any legal advice or personal inputs. Programmes could be set up to accredit interpreters who receive training in this regard. Fifth, Police interviews should not start unless the interpreter is in the room. Sixth, the interpreter should arrive with minimal delay. Otherwise, a suspect may accept the absence of an interpreter to avoid being detained for an unduly long period of time. Seventh, the interpreter should not only translate the final statement, but also interpret what the Police officers and the suspect say.
Some of these points were addressed by Minister Shanmugam earlier and I am glad he has stated that some changes will be made. But I hope that all the points I have raised above will also be considered.
Sir, I recognise that there may be operational and cost considerations to having interpreters quickly and universally available. But we cannot have a situation where Police questions can be misunderstood, and we cannot allow suspects the opportunity to later claim that they had misunderstood questions. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of interpretation is a small price to pay for the procurement of justice.
Sir, in conclusion, I propose three things. One, the introduction of the Appropriate Adult Scheme for foreign domestic workers. Two, the mandatory video recording of all Police interviews. Three, the mandatory provision of language interpretation during Police interviews, with high standards set to ensure professional quality, prompt availability and no misunderstanding.
Time and again, we have seen cases turn on the uncertainty of what happens in the interview room. When this occurs, it does a disservice to suspects, Police officers, prosecutors, judges and all Singaporeans. My proposals will help alleviate these problems.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, Mr Leon Perera brought up the ombudsman and cited many decades of history on this. But I would say in response to Mr Perera to look at the request in the context not only of the countries that he has cited – and I will come back to that in a moment – but also, particularly, in the context of Singapore – our system, our institutions and our people.
The intention behind the ombudsman is to enhance the rule of law, improve our criminal justice system and I think you have heard earlier Members from this side of the House brook no dissent with that. We all agree that that is a fundamental objective. We want to enhance our rule of law. We want to improve our systems. But I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that the proof of the pudding is really in the eating, in looking not only at the countries that have set up the ombudsman, but to look at where they stand after years, if not decades, of having the ombudsman and the impact it has had on their legal system.
So, in that respect, we have heard the World Justice Report cited several times. I would like to take Members back to that. Singapore, in 2020, was ranked 12th, an improvement from the previous year. In contrast, the three countries that Mr Perera cited as having had Ombudsman – Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines – were ranked 59th, 47th and 91st respectively. If you were to take the most recent Gallup Law and Order survey, out of a hundred points, Singapore scored 97. Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia were at least 10 points behind Singapore.
And if you look more closely at the most recent Crime Index 2020, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia are all behind Singapore. So, I would suggest that instead of just citing these experiences from other countries, to put it in the context of where this system operates and the people that operate the system as well, and ask ourselves, what is that reality? How does the Ombudsman translate into a better legal system, better rule of law and, fundamentally, a safer Singapore? Where would you choose to bring up children? Where would you want to have our women and children be safe late at night – in Singapore or some other countries? And I think that is the proof of the pudding. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and that is what I meant when I said that. Ultimately, you look at those indicators.
And in Singapore, we have our public institutions with its governance. We have internal reviews and, to the extent that some Members have said internal reviews are not sufficient because they are all conducted by internal people, then, on occasion, where necessary, there is the external review as well. I am sure Mr Perera is aware of the fact that there are many such panels.
In MHA, there is the independent Review Panel set up to review cases externally, independently. The SAF has set up external Review Panels as well. Likewise the SCDF. And to the extent that issues of public interest are raised, there is this forum in Parliament, and I am sure Members will agree that as we sit here past 10 pm this evening, that we spare no effort debating, discussing, going down into every detail that matters.
There is the current case. Members will remember that we have had the SingHealth breach raised in Parliament as well by way of Ministerial Statements, by way of Parliamentary Questions; the MRT breakdown, the MINDEF incidents, even what happens to doctors when they are apparently wrongly prosecuted.
And on occasion, even that may not be enough. And after the recent SCDF incidents were ventilated in Parliament, a separate Board of Inquiry, or BOI, was set up to look into the matter, separate from the Police investigation, came up with a report which subsequently MHA accepted. No cover-up on any of these occasions. On top of all of these, we have the COI. We have had a lot of debate about the COI, whether it is \"committee\" or \"commission\". But that provides an additional layer with public hearings. We have the Courts ultimately. And I thought I heard Mr Perera said that it is very difficult to bring an action in Court, either by way of judicial review or otherwise.
I had a quick look at the numbers and, in the last two years, there were 46 civil actions filed against the Government. I am not suggesting that these numbers are high or low. But I think where it needs to happen, this is an avenue. This is an avenue that our citizens can avail themselves of: bring their claims and the Courts – not the Executive, not an internal body – will evaluate these claims.
And, ultimately, when you have an ombudsman, the question really is: can they serve a better function than each of these specialist panels set up specifically for an inquiry, where necessary, with the relevant powers of investigation and with the relevant expertise for each of these cases?
Mr Perera said CPIB only investigates corruption, but not rude behaviour. Well, we have the QSM for that. We have the Members of Parliament who listen to residents every week, week in, week out. I am sure many of you would have come across occasions where you were told so and so was rude to me, so and so did not listen to me. There are proper avenues for this to be brought up. So, I would say to Mr Perera and to other Members suggesting the ombudsman, to look at this suggestion in the context of not only what we have in our society already running, functioning, but also what the end result has shown.
Sir, some questions have also been raised concerning the length of time that it has taken for the trial to proceed and why it has taken four years for Ms Liyani's case to be resolved. Let me take this House through some key events. The Police report was lodged on 30 October 2016 and Members will remember that Ms Liyani returned to Singapore in December 2016. She was then arrested and, for a period of time, the Police conducted their investigations.
On 5 June 2017, the Police sent the file to AGC for their investigations and recommendations. AGC asked the Police to clarify certain points, which the Police then looked into. Eventually, on 10 August 2017, the AGC directed the Police to prefer charges against Ms Liyani. She was released. She was charged in Court on 31 August 2017 and released on bail. Ms Liyani claimed trial to the charges and, at the second pre-trial conference in October 2017, AGC asked for trial dates in February 2018 – four months later. However, counsel said that he could not take dates in February or March 2018. As a consequence, the trial was fixed for hearing in April 2018. That was to accommodate her counsel's availability.
The trial commenced in April 2018. Due to the issues, it could not be concluded within the allocated period, and it took place over several tranches and eventually concluded on 17 January 2019 – 20 hearing days. And we are not suggesting for a moment, I think, that we should truncate the trial simply because we want to have speed as opposed to thoroughness.
There was a total of 16 witnesses – 12 prosecution witnesses, four defence witnesses – and the record of proceedings came up to 3,699 pages. The verdict by the State Courts was delivered on 20 March 2019 and Ms Liyani was sentenced a few days later on 25 March. She then appealed against the sentence and conviction. Detailed submissions were put forward to the High Court by both parties, and this was heard over three days – in November 2019, February 2020 and August 2020 and, eventually, the High Court acquitted Ms Liyani on 4 September 2020. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: We will probably sit here past 11 pm as well. Ms Gan Siow Huang. Oh, Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Minister for his points. Just a few clarifications.
Firstly, I cited a number of countries that have an ombudsman – not only Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, but also Hong Kong, Australia, various European countries. I am wondering if the Minister is making the argument that having an ombudsman actually lowers the quality of justice, and is there any evidence to that effect? Is the Minister also saying that all countries that have an ombudsman, generally, because of some causative effect of having an ombudsman, actually fare more poorly in terms of justice indicators and so on and so forth? Is he making that argument? I do not think he is, but I do want to clarify that.
Secondly, I think he talked about Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia; and he selected just those countries of all the ones I mentioned. Would the Minister acknowledge the possibility that those countries, without an ombudsman system, may actually fare even lower in the rankings than where they currently are at?
Thirdly, I believe that the Minister would argue that we have fundamentally strong criminal justice institutions and so on, but I would like to invite the Minister to agree with me that even though things are good, there is a possibility that they can be better. There is always room for improvement. Would he agree that ideas like the ombudsman may help us to get to that goal?
Lastly, just very briefly, to respond to the Minister's point on QSM and Meet-the-People sessions, I did address that in my speech. QSM is not an independent process that is outside of the authorities, Statutory Board or Ministry that is the subject of the complaint. Meet-the-People sessions do not include an independent fact-finding process. I just want to make that observation.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Perera. I am not generalising and I know that you have gone into a series of other countries. I think if you did the research – which I am sure you did – you would have seen numerous articles about the ombudsman system in Australia, in the UK and the failings that they have had. Just look at the NHS ombudsman in the UK and the police ombudsman in the UK. Two examples.
Second, I am not in a position to speculate as to what might happen to those countries were there no ombudsman. But I think the point I am making is two-fold: first, look at the outcome in these countries – I am suggesting that they do not fare better than Singapore and I am sure the Member will agree; and second, perhaps more importantly, that we have our own systems, we have our own context. And we have our system that works in the way in which I have outlined. I am not sure if I did justice to it when I outlined it very quickly, in the interest of time.
I am sure the Member will agree that you have to apply suggestions in the context of what you already have in your own systems and look at whether that is going to improve the system or whether that would create yet another layer.
On his third point about the QSM, I made the point in response to the fact that you do not need an ombudsman to deal with someone who is rude to an individual. That is where you have the QSM, you have your Members of Parliament, you have other avenues like REACH to deal with.
On his final point, I think we all agree that if we can better the system – obviously – and I think on that, we are on the same page.
Mr Speaker: My apologies, the long sitting is affecting my eyesight. Where is Desmond Tan?
The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, fellow Members of Parliament: I have heard many speeches and questions from fellow Members. While there are differences in opinion, what is clear is that all Members are concerned about this issue and for our country. In fact, the debate in Parliament today fully reflects the three pillars of our transparent, fair, and structured system of governance. Let me sum them up with “one, two, and three”. One, it represents a kind of insistence, an insistence on accountability. Two, it represents our two core values: justice, and equality. Three, it represents the separation of the three branches of power in Government, that is, the independence of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
One, two and three: one insistence, two core values, and three independent branches of Government. These three key points form the cornerstones of our system of governance, and are implemented across our management and decision-making, across every Public Service Department and every public servant, and in every decision everyone here, makes every day.
Without accountability, we will become a society where people accuse one another and problems remain unresolved; without justice and equality, we will become a corrupt and backward country; without separation of powers, the consequences will be most frightening, and the power vacuum will plunge our country into chaos and crisis. This is certainly not an outcome we want.
To ensure Singapore's continued growth and prosperity, we must hold steadfast to these three pillars of governance.
First, we must uphold the accountability system. Ms Liyani's case has sparked questions from the public on whether individual law enforcement officers have complied with the standard operating procedures, whether there are flaws in the investigation procedures of the Attorney-General's Chambers, and the qualifications of the trial judge. We must address these concerns. In the Ministerial Statement by Minister K Shanmugam earlier, he addressed these concerns by setting out the facts and the corresponding remedial actions.
Every job has a certain scope of duty, rules and regulations that must be observed, and tasks that must be done. If mistakes are made at work, it is clear that the jobholder must bear responsibility and face the consequences. This is the system of accountability that we have always upheld, and this is especially important in the Public Service.
This is because the Public Service uses public resources, and thus has to be accountable to the state, to the people, about the areas where resources were used, why they were used, and to produce results. The Public Service has always been open and transparent. If a civil servant’s performance is unsatisfactory, he/she is held accountable. If punishment is necessary, it is not shirked, and it is not perfunctory. The public can see that the assessment system is robust. If results are not produced, there are areas of negligence, or laws have been infringed, the jobholder will be promptly removed from the service.
A holistic, clear, and rational system of accountability encourages us to identify problems, find solutions, and seek progress. This is a continuous process. The accountability system should not lead to inaction in the public service, nor should it become a tool for political criticism. As we identify problems and explore solutions, we must also guard against over-correcting or putting the cart before the horse. If a law or judicial process is taken advantage of by criminals to exonerate themselves, or causes people to stop reporting crimes and lose confidence in the justice system, it will go against the objectives and spirit of the original legislation.
Second, our two core values of justice and equality. Justice and equality are the core values on which Singapore depends for her survival. They are reflected in our policies in various areas, such as free education for 10 years, ensuring that every Singaporean child has the opportunity to upgrade themselves through education, and thereafter to continue training and maintain job competitiveness through government subsidies. Public housing policies ensure that every resident can afford to own their home, rather than allowing the market to freely determine housing prices. In healthcare, the Government also gives higher subsidies to the low-income and disadvantaged groups, and ensures that every Singaporean has access to quality medical care through Medisave and other schemes.
The values of justice and equality have been ingrained in our thinking and systems, as well as our lives. During the debate on the President’s Address in Parliament in 2018, Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong said that Singapore would not condone ostentatious displays of wealth or discrimination against others, and must always remain vigilant and must not allow elite groups from becoming closed circles. The Singapore government's stand on this issue is clear: we seek a fair and just democratic society and will never tolerate the formation of closed circles of elites. Any actual injustice can be corrected. This includes providing pro-bono legal advice and representation to those who have limited means through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS). Ms Liyani is one such beneficiary under this Scheme.
In 2013, the Ministry of Law announced funding for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme and in 2015, it co-funded the Enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme with the Singapore Law Society. From 2015 to 2019, the government allocated an average of $2 million per year to fund the scheme.
The scheme also encourages practising lawyers to come forward to provide their services. Over the past 4 years, they have taken up close to 1,000 cases, ensuring that no Singaporean will be denied the help they need because they cannot afford to pay for a lawyer. This is a commitment by the Government and community organisations to Singaporeans.
Protecting Singaporeans' lives and property is an enduring commitment. This year, the police force celebrates 200 years of maintaining law and order in Singapore. Our law enforcement agencies have pledged allegiance to the country and to protect people's lives and property for up to 200 years. We are proud that Singapore ranked second in the world's safest cities, just behind Tokyo. This achievement, this sense of security, did not come by easily. Besides the prosperity and development of the country, our people live and work in peace and harmony, and the Singapore Armed Forces and the Home Team – as well as other law enforcement agencies - do their utmost in their duties. We must all work together and do our utmost to uphold the reputation of a safe city in the world.
Third, the separation of powers. The separation of powers is the cornerstone of our democratic system and ensures the independence of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary branches of Government. Hence, even for someone who has power in the Executive or Legislative branches of Government, he may still be tried independently before the law by the Judiciary branch of Government, and may still be subject to independent investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Minister K Shanmugam also explained in his Ministerial Statement just now that our system of governance and the justice system abide by the rule of law. If anyone commits a crime, he would have to face the consequences of a judicial trial, and would not have any special privileges. Minister also provided many examples and details. Fellow members who know the law have also shared many precedents. Hence, I will not belabour that point.
Mr Speaker, there is one more point I would like to cover. Apart from penalties, it is more important for us to be self-disciplined. While the law sets the baseline for our conduct, morals and ethical standards should be the ultimate guide of our behaviour. We often hear the elderly say: “we must pay attention to “propriety” and law.” This means \"proprieties\" – which include courtesy and etiquette – should take precedence over the law. We have to abide by the proprieties and law, and not violate the law. Confucianism advocates the following goals in life: \"observe things, gain knowledge, be sincere, be righteous, improve oneself, keep the family together, govern the state, and bring peace to the world \". If every one of us can be sincere, upright, improve oneself and keep the family together, there will be no reason for police officers to come to our doorstep, much less will there be any negative impact on society.
Besides managing oneself well, we also need to care for others, especially the disadvantaged groups in society. If you find that there are people around you who need help, I urge you to inform welfare organisations in the community, raise the difficulties they face, and work together with everyone to solve them. Do not cross onto the wrong side of the law or embark on the road of crime.
This, is where we will have to be accountable to ourselves.
Since Singapore's independence, the Government has upheld the three pillars of accountability, fairness and equality, and the separation of powers, and in so doing, built the progressive, prosperous, just, and equal nation, that we have today, just as promised in our Pledge. We are all Singapore Citizens; I hope everyone will continue to work together to achieve happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
The Minister of State for Education and Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, I am glad that the hon Mr Gerald Giam shares our view that foreign domestic workers have specific vulnerabilities and there is more that we can do to support them. Foreign domestic workers help many of our households and families with care-giving and domestic chores, and we value the contribution of foreign domestic workers.
MOM has put in place regulatory framework and partnerships with NGOs to protect and take care of our foreign domestic workers in many ways. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and Regulations, employers are required to make timely and full payment of salary to their domestic workers and help upkeep their maintenance during their employment in Singapore. This includes provision of adequate food and medical treatment, safe working conditions and adequate daily rest.
Over the years, we have also made several changes to our laws to better safeguard the well-being of foreign domestic workers. In 2013, the law was amended to require employers to provide foreign domestic workers with weekly rest day or compensation in lieu. In 2018, employers were required to purchase personal accident insurance with payout of $60,000, up from $40,000 previously, for their foreign domestic workers. More recently in 2019, the law was amended to explicitly disallow employers from safekeeping the salary of their foreign domestic workers to reduce downstream salary disputes. Complaints against employers who fail to meet their obligations are investigated and errant employers are given appropriate penalties. For more serious infringements, employers can be prosecuted.
First-time foreign domestic workers and employers are educated about their rights and responsibilities. Such education is done through the mandatory Foreign Domestic Worker Settling-In Programme and the Employers' Orientation Programme.
At the Settling-In Programme, we inform foreign domestic workers of their rights and encourage them to perform their work duties responsibly. We also educate foreign domestic workers on the multiple channels of help available that they can approach and this includes MOM, of course, employer agencies, the NGOs such as Centre for Domestic Employees, the Police and the embassies. At the Employers' Orientation Programme, we inform employers of their legal responsibilities towards their foreign domestic workers.
MOM has also started a programme with the Centre for Domestic Employees to interview first-time foreign domestic workers in their first few months of employment, conducted in their native language. This interview helps detect any settling-in or adjustment issues, so that the foreign domestic workers and employers can work through and resolve them early.
NGOs such as Centre for Domestic Employees and Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training, or FAST, run regular clinics with their legal partners for foreign domestic workers who need legal advice. Foreign domestic workers will be assisted to secure pro bono representation with volunteer lawyers from the Law Society Pro Bono Services and other partnering law firms. Ms Parti Liyani was similarly assisted by Legal Aid facilitated by an NGO.
Foreign domestic workers who are victims of errant employers will be removed from their employers' place of residence for their protection. MOM allows them to remain in Singapore to assist in investigations. MOM will ensure that they have proper food and housing, and the foreign domestic workers will be allowed to seek employment during this time.
In fact, when I visited the Centre for Domestic Employees or CDE, I met several foreign domestic workers who were in the shelter. They were actually very grateful that their basic needs were being taken care of. In their free time, actually, they also interacted and learned about each other's culture and even picked up simple craft. For foreign domestic workers who call CDE, we also have a vehicle to go and pick them up if they do not know their way.
The vast majority of employers and foreign domestic workers respect their contractual and legal obligations to each other, and many have strong relationships. We regularly reach out to employers and foreign domestic workers through electronic direct mailers and newsletters to feature best practices and tips on how to develop good working relationships.
The Association of Employment Agencies Singapore gives out awards to honour and recognise foreign domestic workers and employers who have maintained healthy long-lasting relationships. One of the award winners in 2019 was Ms Somejo. She is 59 years old and has worked with her employer for 28 years and looked after her employer's four daughters like her own. When Typhoon Haiyan left Ms Somejo's family homeless in 2013, her employer and one of her daughters raised funds to help Ms Somejo's family rebuild their home.
A healthy and strong working relationship requires the cooperation and effort of both employers and the foreign domestic workers. MOM will continue to work with the stakeholders to protect the well-being of foreign domestic workers as well as the employers, and promote harmonious relationships between them. We have made good progress through the years. There is more that we can do and we look forward to working with the stakeholders to improve the system for foreign domestic workers and the employers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by conveying my sincere thanks to the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru for moving this Motion and triggering this enthusiastic discussion, despite the lateness of the day.
It is clear from the speeches that we have heard that there is broad consensus on much that is touched by the Motion. There is broad consensus on the point that fairness, access and independence have been and continue to be cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. There is consensus that justice must apply equally to all, irrespective of means or social status. And I would add that, it should also not matter what one's race, language or religion is.
These are matters for which there is overwhelming consensus not just in this House, but outside this House as well. It reflects the founding values of Singapore from Independence – a point I will develop later in my speech.
As Ms He pointed out, there are constitutional articles where these values are enshrined and against which all other laws and Executive action are void and effective. Articles such as Article 9 which deals with no deprivation of life or liberty, safe in accordance with law. Article 12, which requires all persons to be equal before the law and be entitled to equal protection of the law. Article 93, which vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court in the State Courts.
There is also a broad consensus over the fact that whenever there are shortcomings affecting the judicial system, steps must be identified to remedy them. This has been the case before, now and will continue to be the case.
In this regard, we need to understand the separation of powers within our Constitution which is modelled on the Westminster system. The Executive arm of the Government is accountable to this House for the actions of its enforcement officers. The Judiciary is an independent arm of the Government. So is the Attorney-General. He derives his power from an independent constitutional grant. Our apex Court has described his office as a high constitutional office equal to that of the Judiciary.
They are separate processes spelled out in the Constitution and other legislation to hold judicial and prosecuting officers to account in a way that does not compromise the independence of our Judiciary and the Attorney-General's office. The hon Leader of Opposition referred to the fact that the DPPs in the Parti Liyani case were referred for disciplinary action in relation to whether or not they had breached the Kadar obligations.
So, this is a separate process that will have to take place. And if these DPPs are held to be in breach, then they would have to suffer the consequences, while maintaining the independence of the Judiciary and the Attorney-General's office.
I agree with Ms Lim in her view that the justice system must work fairly for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons navigating the system as defenders. For them, we need to ensure equal access to justice.
Access to justice does not necessarily equate to assess to lawyers. These are not my words. These are the words of Lady Hale, the retired President of the UK Supreme Court. In Singapore, Courts have taken great pains to explain their decision so that people could understand the law, particularly in the criminal law sphere.
And I would even say, for sentencing the Courts have come up with frameworks to allow people to understand for a certain kind of offence, what would be the probable sentence. This would assist lay people to appreciate what decisions they would face if they were to be convicted in a court of law.
But one accepts that a Judge would generally be in a better position to decide on the merits of the case as a neutral umpire hearing both sides, as opposed to entering into the fray to help frame questions and arguments for the unrepresented person.
The main points I wish to make in my speech are as follows.
This is a country that is governed by the rule of law. That has been my experience over the past 28 years as a former regular Police officer and now a lawyer. The hallmark of the rule of law is independence and transparency of the Judiciary. And I am very glad to note that hon Members from the Workers' Party agree fully with this point.
The second point I wish to make is that in the context of administration of justice that involves more stakeholders; the Police, the DPPs, the State Courts, Judiciary and so on, we have made improvements over time, over years. We certainly have not arrived yet. And today we have heard very good suggestions from both sides of the House which should be considered, debated and distilled.
The point that the hon Minister for Home Affairs made just a few moments ago, is something that we should bear in mind. While there can be good ideas, at the end of the day, it is a balancing process. We need to balance the interests of the victims, the accused persons, the public and, of course, the state resources of which the Minister for Finance is in charge of.
With that as a background, I wish to recount my experience in the Police force. Sir, like the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, I joined the Police force as a regular for a few years, before I joined private practice as a lawyer – again, just like her. In fact, Ms Lim was my colleague; a very capable colleague, I would add.
The work of the Singapore Police Force officers, then and now, has always been focused on protecting the vulnerable amongst us. Although it has been decades since I left the force, I can still vividly remember some cases I personally dealt with. I will highlight two, where I was involved, was covering the duties of CIO 1 Tanglin Police Division.
The first case involved a rape case, of an 11-year-old girl who was going for tuition in the day. She was raped at a staircase landing of a flat. It was a terribly trying moment for her. But amazingly, she was able to provide a good description of the assailant. We devoted full attention to the case, leaving no stones unturned. That helped us nab him within a few days. He was charged in Court and convicted and sentenced to a long imprisonment term.
I still remember the note from the girl's father who expressed his appreciation over the work that we did. He said that the apprehension and conviction of the assailant brought closure which allowed him and his daughter to move on. His daughter would be about 36 or 37 years old now.
The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim shared her experience of a rape victim who unfortunately was not told the reasons why the AGC did not proceed with her complaint and charge the accused in Court. But she would certainly agree with me that between the time when we were in the Police force and now, great strides have been taken to improve the process.
Previously, rape cases were dealt with at the Division level. Now, we have the Serious Sexual Crime Branch under the CID, where Police officers are given special training to give special attention to victims of sexual offences and, in the process, make sure that they would get the justice that they deserve. We have not arrived yet, but we have made great progress.
The second case I will never forget involved my colleague, the late SI Boo Tiang Huat. He was the OC of Whitley NPP, if I remember correctly. At that time, there was a spate of housebreaking at homes under the charge of the NPP. He personally led anti-house breaking rounds, night after night, to deter such incidents. He felt it his personal responsibility to lead these efforts.
In the early morning of 30 November 1994, SI Boo was murdered by a person whom he stopped to check along Newton Road. The person was apparently walking home after an aborted robbery attempt. He chopped SI Boo with an axe that he extricated from a bag he was carrying.
Personally, for myself and colleagues who attended the scene, it was tough to accept that a colleague we saw earlier in the morning has sacrificed his life in the course of duty. It was tougher for his wife and his young children, whom I accompanied to the scene to pray for SI Boo's soul later that day.
Police officers, past and present have spilled blood, sweat and tears in their mission to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Heng and Senior Minister of State Mr Heng Chee How and several other hon Members have storied careers in the Police force They know this for a fact. The core values of the Singapore Police officers are courage, even if it means to risk their lives, loyalty, integrity and fairness.
On fairness, SPF's published credo is as follows and I quote,\"We are fair in our dealings with people, irrespective of race, religion, gender, age, standing in life and irrespective of whether they are victims, suspects or convicts.\"
This is this unstinting devotion to duty that allowed Singapore to achieve the enviable reputation of being a relatively safe country with low crime rate. That is not to say there is no discipline cases within the force. Yes, from time to time, we have black sheep. These persons will be dealt with effectively by SPF, CPIB and the Courts. But their conduct is not representative of the vast majority of upright, dedicated and hardworking Police officers. And earlier today, we heard Minister Shanmugam saying, maybe even overworked Police officers.
I joined legal practice in 1996. I continued to be involved in criminal and pro bono work. As a pro bono lawyer, I have acted for vulnerable and disadvantaged people. In fact, this eventually led me to politics. I highlight two cases where I was involved in.
My very first trial was a pro bono case to defend a young man accused of shoplifting. He just completed his National Service (NS). He and his family had very modest means and could not pay for a lawyer. He had walked out of the department store with items that he did not pay for. Luckily for him, the Court was persuaded that he walked out of the store accidentally and acquitted him.
Recently, I took on a Court-assigned pro bono case involving a mentally disordered person with little education. His father had passed away and his mother was a cleaner at a hawker centre. He was accused of stealing coins from a vending machine. He was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder. I was exploring a community sentence, a Mandatory Treatment Order, to be imposed on him even though his prognosis for recovery was not good. As it turned out, he subsequently assaulted his own mother. That put paid to my efforts and he was sentenced to prison for his offences.
At this point, I wish to state that it is a matter of pride for me that over the years, the Law Society of Singapore has nurtured a strong culture of pro bono work amongst its lawyers, especially through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS started in the 1980s by the late Mr Harry Elias, Senior Counsel, and now supported by MinLaw.
Mr Anil Balchandani, the lawyer who acted for Ms Parti Liyani, is a good example of a selfless legal professional devoted to the cause of justice on behalf of persons who ordinarily would not be able to afford to pay for the services of a lawyer. I am confident that many more lawyers would be motivated by his example. This can only auger well for our country.
I also wish to state that I have acted for people who have occupied important positions and have been charged in Court for various criminal offences. For example, I acted for Mr Choo Wee Khiang, a former Member of Parliament and Mr Chuang Shaw Peng, a former Nominated Member of Parliament.
In none of the cases that I dealt with, for the vulnerable persons and the \"connected\" persons, if I could use that word, did I get the feeling that the justice system was tilted in favour of \"connected\" persons, as compared to the persons who are disadvantaged.
And this may be a convenient time for me to deal with a few points that the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim raised in her speech.
She pointed out that bails could work adversely for poor people because they cannot post bail. I wish to state that the provision of bail is a judicial decision. The Judge deciding whether to grant bail or allowing the person to be released on his own cognisance, would be something that has to be dealt with after considering the offence that the person is charged for, the kind of sentence that may be imposed and, of course, the strong presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So, it is a balancing act. And I have seen Judges deciding to allow persons of humble means to be let off, to be bailed or rather, to be released on a personal bond.
Ms Sylvia Lim also mentioned about the difficulty of paying fines for indigent persons. And that is a fair point but again, I come back to the important note that the imposition of a fine is a punishment by the Judge acting in his judicial discretion. The Judge would have to decide in the circumstances of the case, whether a fine is an adequate punishment.
And there are other options as well, particularly in the last few years, we have, as some Members have pointed out, the community aentence option in addition to the usual options. So, there is a discretion given to the Judge to make sure that the ends of justice, not just from the perspective of the accused, but from the perspective of the victim and the state, are met.
There have also been great strides in improving the criminal justice system. I would not go through ground that has already been highlighted by hon Members who spoke before me. I would just go straight to the fact that clearly, there is broad agreement between Members from both sides of the House about the importance of fairness, access and independence being the cornerstones of Singapore's justice system from inception and recognition that there has been continuous efforts to improve the justice system to build a fair and just society, regardless of one's personal background, race, religion or social economic background. These efforts must continue on.
With that in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your permission to move an amendment to the Motion under discussion to reflect this broad agreement.
Mr Speaker: Do you have a copy of the amendment?
Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. May I hand it out now? [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]
Mr Speaker: Do you have copies for Members?
Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. I have handed them to the Clerk. May copies be distributed to hon Members, please.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.] Please move your amendment.
Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendments:
(1)\tIn line 1, to delete \"affirms\" and insert \"recognises\";
(2)\tIn line 3, to delete \"calls on the Government to recognise\" and insert instead \"affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society\";
(3)\tIn line 3, to delete \"its shortcomings\" and insert \"any shortcoming\";
(4)\tIn line 4, after the words \"regardless of\" to insert the words \"race, language, religion, economic\"; and finally,
(5)\tIn line 5, to delete \", including facilitating a review of the justice system\" and insert a full-stop.
With your leave, Sir, I would like to explain the proposed amendments.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali, can you pause for a while. Leader, would you like to suspend the Standing Orders for the extension of time for Mr Murali?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Member's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Mr Murali Pillai's speech so that he can explain.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Mr Murali Pillai's speech. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Justice System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, I am obliged to the Leader of the House for moving the Motion.
Sir, I was at the point of explaining the proposed amendments. Let me just say that it is my hope that these proposed amendments would get bipartisan support.
With that, let me now go through the amendments.
The first point is really replacing \"affirms\" with \"recognises\", to be more precise. And that is to state the fact that from the outset, from Singapore's Independence, fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of the Singapore justice system.
And the next point, Sir, it is in relation to the usage of the word \"affirms\". And this is really to state as a matter of truth, that the Government has been continually putting in the effort since Independence to build a fair and just society, to remedy any shortcoming to enhance justice for all regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status. So, I added the words \"race, language, religion\" and I do not think that should be controversial.
I have proposed to delete \"including facilitating a review\" of the justice system. Let me explain why. This is to leave this Motion in broad terms so that at the end of the day, it is an affirmation that the Government would continue to remedy any shortcoming that is brought up, and to allow the conversation to happen in this House about what further steps need to be taken.
One should realise this. At the end of the day, the buck stops with this House. It is this House that has to make the political decisions to pass legislation, to move amendments to the Constitution in relation to the justice system. So, the buck must stop here and this Motion reflects that reality. I do not think anything is taken away with the amendments that I propose.
Sir, I am clear in my mind where the PAP Government stands on this. The raison d'etre of the PAP is to build a fair and just society, founded on justice and equality for all people, especially the disadvantaged. This applies in and out of Court.
Just a few days ago, Miss Lim, a daughter of a man who was on his deathbed approached me. She was served with a Stay-Home Notice or SHN, and she was extremely concerned that she would not be able to see her father at the deathbed because she had to serve the SHN. Within three hours, she was able to see her father in the hospital. Which other country would be able to do this and this was way after office hours?
Sir, let us not forget, while we wish to improve the system, we have every reason to be proud of the justice system and, in fact, the Government system that we have in place today. This is not the time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I believe my hon friends from Workers' Party across the aisle would also hold true to the same values. With that, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: There are five amendments proposed by Mr Murali Pillai. These are:
\"(1) In line 1, to delete 'affirms' and insert 'recognises';
(2) In line 3, to delete 'calls on the Government to recognise' and insert 'affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society';
(3) In line 3, to delete 'its shortcomings' and insert 'any shortcoming';
(4) In line 4, after the words 'regardless of' to insert the words 'race, language, religion, economic';
(5) In line 5, to delete 'including facilitating a review of the justice system' and insert a full-stop.\"
Does any Member wish to speak on these five amendments? And, if so, Members wishing to speak on these five amendments can speak on them en bloc.
We will now deal with the five amendments proposed. The first amendment.
[(proc text) Question, \"In line 1, to delete the word 'affirms' and insert the word 'recognises'\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The second amendment.
[(proc text) Question, \"In line 3, to delete the words 'calls on the Government to recognise' and insert the words 'affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society'\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, may we ask for our dissent to be recorded?
Mr Speaker: We will record the dissent.
[(proc text) Hon Members\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The third amendment.
[(proc text) Question, \"In line 3, to delete the words 'its shortcomings' and insert the words 'any shortcoming'\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Hon Members\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The fourth amendment.
[(proc text) Question, \"In line 4, after the words 'regardless of', to insert the words 'race, language, religion, economic'\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The fifth amendment.
[(proc text) Question, \"In line 5, to delete the words 'including facilitating a review of the justice system' and insert a full-stop\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: For those who are dissenting, if I can request that you raise your hands, so that we can record it.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The amendments have been agreed to. The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.
[(proc text) Question proposed, \"That this House recognises that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system and affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society and remedy any shortcoming in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Yes, Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, a point of order. Am I not given the right of reply?
Mr Speaker: You will be replying at the end.
Ms Sylvia Lim: When would that be? It should be before the vote.
Mr Speaker: After Ms Indranee Rajah, you will wrap up. You will be wrapping up the discussion. Ms Indranee Rajah.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I believe Ms Sylvia Lim may have been asking whether she could speak on the vote to amend the Motion. Is that correct, Ms Lim? Or are you asking to speak on the vote on the Motion, as amended?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, I would like your ruling whether I am entitled to a right of reply as the mover of the original Motion.
Mr Speaker: As in replying to the amendments?
Ms Sylvia Lim: To round up the debate.
Mr Speaker: Yes, you will be rounding up.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Before the final vote is put.
Mr Speaker: Yes, you will be rounding up the debate. No change to that.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, when Ms Sylvia Lim moved this Motion, she said that she was not saying that the system is broken but it can be improved. She also said that today's Motion is not about tearing down the system or discouraging those who work in law enforcement, the AGC or the Courts; far from it, it is about a desire to raise the system to the next level, which indeed I think is something that we can all agree on.
The Workers' Party had put forward some suggestions. These have been debated. I would like in my speech to address the suggestions that were put forward by Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, specifically with regard to decoupling the function of the Attorney-General and the function of the Public Prosecutor.
Mr Singh made three points. But actually, the second two points are really premised on the first. So, let me deal with the first one.
His first point was that there is, allegedly, a weakness in our prosecutorial structure and that arises from the two roles of the AG: one being his role as the Government's legal advisor and the other being the role as a Public Prosecutor. In the first, he takes charge of three areas – legislation, international affairs and civil matters. In the second, as the Public Prosecutor, he has to prosecute without fear or favour.
The essence of Mr Singh's argument is that there is a conflict, an inherent conflict in these two roles. And he articulated it in this form, that as the Government's legal advisor, the Attorney-General's duty is to protect the interests of the Government and as the Public Prosecutor, it is to represent the public and prosecute without fear or favour.
In addressing this, he also mentioned that Ms Sylvia Lim had raised this point previously. Indeed, she had, but not quite in the same way.
So, what I want to do is firstly, address how Ms Sylvia Lim articulated it and then, I will go on to address how Mr Singh articulated it. To be fair, they both want to reach the same point, which is that there is a conflict so you should decouple them. But actually, the argument has evolved a little bit.
Let me first start off with how Ms Sylvia Lim first put it. She put it in this way: \"in order to further strengthen the system and shore up the independence of the Public Prosecutor\", we should \"consider splitting the two roles...to reside in two different offices, so that the person who is the Public Prosecutor or PP, is not the same person taking the Government's instructions in non-criminal matters. I believe this separation exists in other countries to enhance the independence of the PP's office.\"
So, the first point that she made was that, you must decouple it so that the person, who is the PP, is not the same person taking the Government's instructions in non-criminal matters. But this argument is not correct because in non-criminal matters the Attorney-General advises the Government, the Government is his client. And similar to private sector matters, he takes in instructions on matters which are within the Government's purview.
But in criminal matters, the Attorney-General decides whether to prosecute. The Executive and the Cabinet have no say in that.
So, there is no issue with the same person in both roles because the system ensures that in his PP role, the AG acts independently. And the thrust of that argument that Ms Sylvia Lim originally made was that, you are taking the Government's instructions. You take the Government's instructions on the civil matters, on the other matters, but not when it comes to the decision to prosecute.
In responding to that, then Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong also pointed out that the reason why the role is separate in other countries is because in those countries where the roles are separate – in countries such as UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand – the Attorney-General holds political office. He is a political office holder or he sits in Cabinet. There is therefore the question of being subject to political pressures and the separation of the role of the Attorney-General from the public prosecutor in those jurisdictions has to be looked at in that context because he is subject to political pressure. Whereas here – and I will go on to discuss that in a bit more detail later – our situation is different because our Constitution has safeguards in that our AG does not hold political office. The constitutional safeguards ensure that he is protected from such political pressures, and it allows him to discharge both his roles as PP and the Government's legal advisor without fear or favour.
I come back to Mr Singh's argument today. Previously, the argument was you should do it the same way as other countries because of independence. And then, of course, it was pointed out that in other countries, because the AG is a political office holder, that is why you have to separate it.
So, today, the argument is that as the Government's legal advisor, the AG's duty is to protect the interests of the Government. Well, yes and no.
Because as Mr Singh pointed out, as the Government's legal advisor, the AG takes charge of legislation. So, when he protects the Government's interest in legislation, that has nothing to do with his prosecutorial function.
His other role as advisor is international affairs. When he is advising the Government on international affairs, that has nothing to do with prosecution.
The third one – civil matters. When he is advising the Government on civil matters, that has nothing to do with his role as a prosecutor.
And when it comes to his role as a prosecutor, we agree he must be able to prosecute without fear or favour – and he does.
The track record shows that the Attorney-General has prosecuted high level people before, without fear or favour. This includes, for example, the prosecution of Mr Ng Boon Gay, the former director of the CNB; the prosecution of Mr Peter Lim, the former SCDF Commissioner; and more recently, the charges against Mr Pek Lian Guan, CEO and Executive Director of Tiong Seng Holdings, and Pay Teow Heng, Director of Tiong Seng Contractors (Private) Limited.
So, there has never been an issue about being able to act independently.
Mr Singh then raised a couple of examples of where there may be such conflict. And he talked about the difficulty the AG may have in prosecuting Government-linked companies, for example. But again, that is not the case because we have had no difficulty doing that.
In 2017, seven former officers of ST Marine who had been charged were convicted for giving corrupt payments to secure business and/or for other offences. These officers included former Presidents of ST Marine See Leong Teck and Chang Cheow Teck. ST Marine is a subsidiary of ST Engineering, which is in turn, majority-owned by Temasek Holdings, which is a Government-linked company.
So, we have had no issue with prosecuting anybody, whether Government-linked or not, provided the PP sees that there is a case on the face of it to bring charges.
Then, Mr Singh went on to say that it would be difficult, for example, if in the case of – it is a hypothetical example, not a current one – a future government, where the Prime Minister and the AG may be very chummy and therefore the Attorney-General or the PP may not wish to bring a prosecution, either against the Prime Minister if there was an offence committed or somebody close, that thereby, he may have a desire to keep his job for favours or simply because the hypothetical alleged future Prime Minister and the AG are cronies.
Sir, section 22G of the Constitution provides that the Director of CPIB can go to the President if the Prime Minister refuses to proceed with a corruption investigation. The Constitution has many checks and balances. And it envisages that if such a situation may happen where the Prime Minister does not act in accordance with his duty, there is a check, there is a balance, and there is an avenue where corruption and other offences can be prosecuted.
So, really, I have dealt with the alleged conflict. And the position is that there is no conflict between the two roles, for the reasons I have explained.
Mr Singh did point out that in other countries and he named two. He did not name them, but we know who they are. He said that in both these countries that prominent cases of the Attorney-General being subject to political pressure. And that is precisely the point.
Our system protects the Attorney-General from being subject to political pressure. First, with the appointment of the AG. The AG is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister cannot do it just as a whim. The Prime Minister does it in consultation with the Chief Justice, in consultation with the incumbent Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
Appointment is one thing. The next thing is removal. It is very difficult under our system to remove the Attorney-General. Removal is by the President and this time not acting on advice. It is by the President, acting in his or her discretion, and if it concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice except if the AG is unable to discharge the functions of his office whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause or for misbehaviour. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development\", Official Report, 4 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 13, Correction by Written Statement section.]
So, the Prime Minister cannot just say, \"I advise you to get rid of the AG because I happen not to like the way he did this prosecution, or I wanted him to do this and he did not do it\". He cannot. The Prime Minister is constrained by the constitutional provisions.
And further, the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice without the concurrence of a tribunal, consisting of the Chief Justice and two other Judges of the Supreme Court.
So, our system has safeguards to ensure the independence of the Attorney-General and this is very different from other jurisdictions. In fact, in the US, for example, the Attorney-General's position is entirely at the President's pleasure. So, it is not so much about the appointment. It is about whether or not once that person is in place, how easy is it for you to remove him. And in our case, it is not easy. And that gives the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor the assurance of knowing that he can carry out his duty without interference.
Mr Singh then went on to say he had two suggestions for improvements, but the improvements are premised on being able to make out that there is a case that there was a conflict. And I have addressed why there is no conflict.
But there is one point I want to address, which is security of tenure. Because I think the point that Mr Singh will likely make is that, well, you have all these safeguards, but if you have a relatively short term of tenure, then that sort of takes away from the ability to be independent.
But actually, that is not the case either. There is no general rule for tenure. Some countries have a fixed tenure for their Attorneys-General, and some do not. Officers in charge of prosecutions in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong have no security of tenure and typically serve predetermined terms which may be renewable.
And in the US, there is no security of tenure at all. In the words of one of their former Attorney-Generals who was asked to resign, he said, \"I serve at the pleasure of the President. I've understood that from the day I took the job\".
So, what is more important is the constitutional safeguards against removal, and those we have in Singapore.
The third point that Mr Singh made was that he suggested that the system eschews the appointment of ex-Member of Parliament as a Public Prosecutor. And he did say that such an individual can be considered for the role of Government legal advisor. That too is a little bit different from the position advanced by Ms Sylvia Lim before. Because Ms Sylvia Lim before when she raised this point, talked about not having an ex-Member of Parliament, or MP, as the Attorney-General. But shifted slightly – now, it has just become only Public Prosecutor.
But never mind. Let me let me deal with it in any event.
The reason given by Mr Singh was this. He said firstly it would be natural for a former elected MP to have imbibed the political views of the party he or she used to represent. Even if the Public Prosecutor who was previously an MP does his or her sincere best to be objective, they cannot help but be a product of their previous beliefs, which they perhaps still hold. As a Public Prosecutor who was an MP of a political party and steeped in the party's ideology for years, he is likely to hold certain beliefs and approach things in certain ways.
On the face of it, yes, it sounds a little bit worrying. But let us ask ourselves, what does that actually mean? What are the political views of the party that Mr Hri Kumar used to be in, for example.
Well, one of the views is we believe in meritocracy. As a member of the PAP, we believe in meritocracy. We believe in integrity. We believe in not having a corrupt system. We believe in access of justice. I am not sure how this would affect his prosecutorial functions. We also believe in a green and sustainable Singapore. I am not sure how that would affect his prosecutorial functions as well. I mean, what is it about the beliefs of the PAP that would somehow affect his prosecutorial functions? Nothing.
There is nothing. Read our entire manifesto. There is nothing in there that would conflict with the ability of the Deputy Attorney-General to prosecute cases. If the argument is being made that he may have a conflict because of a political reason, would he have to charge somebody who, for example, was from the party previously whom he knows, that is a different argument. That is basically a situation where you see a conflict of interest in which case, the right thing, the proper thing to do is you recuse yourself. Which is exactly the approach that has been taken all along. It is standard procedure. Lawyers do that all the time.
Mr Singh did point out that appearances are important, he referred to how in this case, it was mentioned that the Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions regarding Ms Parti Liyani and that he would recuse himself from any on-going review of the case. As Minister Shanmugam explained, the earlier part of the prosecution, Mr Wong had nothing to do with it at all. That was dealt with at a different level. And since the matter has surfaced, he has recused himself very properly.
And the point I am making is that this is how the system works and that is the assurance that people can have, that if there is some conflict, that the Deputy Attorney-General or the Attorney-General will do the correct thing.
So, I believe, Mr Speaker, I have addressed the points raised by Mr Singh. I just would conclude by saying that it seems that there is much in common. There are some differences in terms of the approach towards the Motion which Mr Murali's amendment addresses. I therefore support the amended Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first, with regard to a general point that the Leader makes about conflict. I will make the point that I do not believe the Leader's answers have squarely addressed the reality of possible conflict between the Attorney-General in his role as Government legal adviser on the one hand and public prosecutor on the other. I still take the view that the conflict is possible and that is the basis of the suggestion that I put in my speech.
I will give an example. I gave two examples: one was with regard to that Government-linked company, which I hypothesised. Now, let me try and take it to some specifics. There is an old article, 23 December 1997. It is an opinion piece by an individual who would later become the Attorney-General in Singapore, Mr Walter Woon. And he talked about malfeasance, a corruption scandal involving Keppel again, but not the latest deferred prosecution agreement that was entered into by —
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you are raising a point of clarification?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, I am. Not the deferred prosecution agreement between Brazil, the US and Singapore, but a similar scandal that occurred previously. And there, what Mr Woon really says is the Attorney-General decides to go after the company, but then does not prosecute the individuals. And so, the situation is the company can accept the fine, but the individuals who later may benefit because of these bribes that were given – they benefit through the fact that the company will give out more bonuses to them, for example.
So, the question, of course, is do we have a situation where we can tell ourselves, \"Look, there is no prospect, no implicit bias here\". Is there a system we can consider of conceive of, which can reduce that prospect in the public perception? And this is where I feel a division of the roles actually may be more helpful to the Government. That is the first point.
The second point is with regard to security of tenure. I hear what the Leader is saying. I take the point. Even in our own experience in Singapore, we have had Attorney-Generals who have served for a long period of time, and others just two years. And my point really is, it would serve the Government well, if the term was at least, for example, five years. I can agree with the suggestion that Mr Walter Woon made because it heightens the prospect of independence in the eyes of the public that this individual was not removed for reasons which the public may start imagining – which may or may not be true.
So, a longer term for the Attorney-General I think would be good for the system.
The third point is about a Member of Parliament who takes on the role of AG. Of course, I can agree with the Leader about integrity, meritocracy and so forth. But again, I think the bigger question is whether the public see it that way. And I would forward that while reasonable people can have different views about this, it is probably more propitious to have that individual not be associated with a political party. And that is a view that reasonable people can have a different view about.
To that end, I did consider whether this position is supposed to be for all time. Let us say, if an MP steps down in 2020, does it mean that he cannot take on the appointment as AG forever and ever? Could there be some scope to consider at least a moratorium period or a garden leave period? I did consider that. So, if there is a question of some concession or some coming together as the Leader suggested in her wrapping-up paragraph and that the positions between the Government and Opposition are not so far apart, perhaps the Government can consider some of the proposals in that light to see how we can end up with a better legal system.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarifications. He raised three. Let me deal with them in turn. With respect to the first one, he mentioned a concern where he articulated that you go after the company and not the individuals. It so happens that in this case, I think if he is referring to the previous case of Keppel O&M, as I had explained in a previous answer in Parliament, that a conditional warning was issued to the company with various penalties. And in that case I had also explained that with respect to the individuals, evidence still needed to be gathered and that it was not a case where somebody had got off or not got off. But rather, it was a case where the Public Prosecutor was facing challenges in terms of getting the evidence. In fact, those investigations still continue. The Attorney-General's office or the Public Prosecutor's office has requested further information and it is still pending. That is out of our hands.
The second point was with respect to the term. I am not sure if I got the point correctly. Just to extend the timing maybe to a longer period. Yes. You can take different terms, it depends on various countries. But the point I was making, and which is actually the more fundamental point, whatever the term is, during that term, nobody can interfere with that person's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion. And that is what guarantees the independence of the system.
The third point, how the public perceives it if somebody who was a former politician becomes a Public Prosecutor, the answer is has that person given anyone any cause for concern? If the person has resigned from the political party, the person takes on the duties, knows the duties and has not given any cause for concern or acted in any way, then there is no reason why the public should feel alarmed.
But and this is a big \"but\", if that person in any way shows that he or she is not acting in accordance with the duties, then appropriate action would have to be taken. That is how we can make sure that our system remains independent, remains strong and remains robust. But I welcome the debate because I understand what drives it, which is the desire to improve the system and to make one better for Singapore. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the first point, this is just as a matter of clarification with the Leader. I do not mean to be argumentative, but I am not referring to the latest Keppel infraction. In 1997, there was another case where Keppel Corp, I do not know the formal legal entity that was involved in this, it does not say Keppel O&M, so I am just reading off what it is. It says, \"Keppel Corp faced 17 charges of bribery, a total of $8.3 million was paid to the Repair and Technical Manager of a British subsidiary of Exxon\" and Keppel got contracts to repair 17 of their tankers. \"The statement of facts extended to the court revealed that this had been done with the knowledge and approval of senior Keppel executives and some directors\", \"the prosecution chose to proceed only with three of the charges. Keppel pleaded guilty, which meant that it admitted to the statement of facts without qualification\", \"the district judge fined Keppel the maximum $100,000 on each of the charges and a total of $300,000, and that was the end of the matter\".
So, I think the point that is being made in this particular case is, the question on the minds of the public in the context of a public prosecutor that also performs the role of the Government legal advisor is, was that discretion, the prosecutorial discretion exercised appropriately? And I think this is where as the Leader suggests, she understands where the thrust of some of our concerns are coming from. These are the sort of situations which we feel may compromise in the public eye, rightly or wrongly, the independence of the AG.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the facts with respect to the 1997 case. But the point is that there does not seem to be anything in what Mr Singh has said which indicates why further action was not taken. We do not know at this point of time and I do not wish to speculate.
The point I wish to make is that it is not at all clear that that has anything to do with the fact that the PP also has an AG role.
I think where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from is that whatever the case in the prosecution, people must feel satisfied that the prosecutor in exercising his functions and duties, has done so properly. And I have given an example of how not in 1997 but many years down the line, where it is a case of the company and potential liability for individuals, company was pursued and the case against individuals is still open.
So, you can see that whatever it is, the Public Prosecutor looks at it and where it is appropriate, takes the necessary action.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim. Would you be wrapping up?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, first, let me thank all Members who spoke on the Motion. Everyone who has spoken accepts that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of our justice system. Let me summarise the Workers' Party's position first.
In respect of fairness, the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted shortcomings in relation to the prosecution's duty of disclosure to the defence and how prosecutors have fallen short of these duties, as flagged by recent judgments from the Court of Appeal.
The unfairness faced by the poor was highlighted by MP for Sengkang Ms He Ting Ru and myself. We have described how a lack of resources can unfairly impact households who are faced with charges for offences, even minor ones. This is a major societal issue that if unaddressed could worsen the class divide and entrench inter-generational poverty.
We have made suggestions on how the unfairness may be mitigated such as re-looking at composition fines and bail.
Fairness is also an issue for those not comfortable in the English language, when it comes to statement recording by law enforcement. For this, I have suggested recording statements documented in other languages. Ms He raised the unfairness faced by those who are wrongly accused and suffered damage and harm. She argued that there should be recourse to compensation, balanced with the need for effective law enforcement in prosecutions.
As for crime victims, I have highlighted that their role and rights need strengthening, if the system is to be fairer to them.
As far as access to justice is concerned, Ms He and Mr Gerald Giam, MP for Aljunied, have acknowledged the existence of legal aid schemes but pointed out that enhancements are due. For instance, criminal legal aid provided in non-capital cases should be entrenched in statute and not left as a Law Society initiative albeit co-funded by the Government.
Mr Giam has particularly highlighted the disadvantages faced by migrant workers, whether it is crime victims or accused persons.
On the right to consult a lawyer when arrested, Ms He pointed out that this was a constitutional right and a review is needed to ascertain if it is functioning optimally, balancing the interests of law enforcement and the accused.
As regard to the third cornerstone of independence, several of my Party colleagues touched on this. MP for Hougang Mr Dennis Tan was concerned about judicial officers at the State Courts and how their independence could be enhanced. He suggested the State Court Judges should not be subject to rotation in and out of the Executive Government, and this could be assured by setting up a separate judicial service.
He also asked if the criteria for the appointment of State Court Judges should be raised to a higher threshold of seniority.
The Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh proposed that the Attorney-General's office be subject to structural change to enhance its independence by decoupling the rules of public prosecutor and the Government legal advisor, so that they are held by different people. He also proposed a longer contractual period of five years for appointees to the post of AG and that any future nominee should have experience in criminal practice either as a judge, prosecutor or defence counsel.
Another Aljuined MP Mr Leon Perera raised the need for additional independent checks on the actions of public bodies through the office of an ombudsman. I have also suggested that it is prudent to do a review on whether there is any institutional sub-culture that inadvertently results in discriminatory outcomes between the rich and poor. If such a sub-culture exists, steps should be taken to eradicate it.
Finally, Sengkang MP Assoc Prof Jamus Lim reminded us that strengthening the rule of law carries an economic imperative and is in the national interest.
Several Members gave different perspectives. Mr Xie Yao Quan praised our criminal justice system and said we should not tar everyone with the same brush. His point was that we should not be critical of all who work in the criminal justice system. And, of course, that was not my intention, as I pointed out that there are many public-spirited professionals in law enforcement, prosecution and the Courts, who take their mission seriously.
Mr Vikram Nair supported the spirit behind my Motion. He agreed with the principle of criminal law reform and spoke of the reforms legislated in the CPC in 2010. He also said that there could be greater access to counsel by accused persons at an earlier stage and he agreed with the idea of a public defender's office. He said that my points on the plight of the poor, improvement of processes of law enforcement agencies and support of crime victims were things that could be looked into. I thank him for that.
I also think Mr Leong Mun Wai for supporting the original Motion.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam reiterated points made by Minister Shanmugam in his Statement on Ms Parti Liyani's case. She said that unfairness is not pervasive and that processes and channels for help exist in our system. However, she agreed that our systems are not perfect and that we should work on our shortcomings and remedy them. If not, we were planting the seeds of doubt and eroding trust in the system. I thank her for saying those things.
Mr Louis Ng raised concerns about the timeline to implement video recording and on translation of statements.
Mr Murali Pillai gave us a lecture on the separation of government powers. He also shared his experiences working within the system.
As for government responses, I am glad that Minister Shanmugam has recognised several issues that we have raised. He said that on many issues, we were on the same page, pushing at an open door. He said we were setting out positions of principle and he did not object to them, but that the front bench needed to think about the implementation.
He said that on a few points, things are already moving. On other things, he said the Government would not be implementing them. He agreed that the poor do face bigger challenges in paying fines for regulatory offences and the potential snow-balling effect. He felt this was a complex issue that required the involvement of many agencies. He agreed that instalment payments could be allowed and that he has given directions to look into this.
The Minister for the said that the Government is at ad idem with MP Pritam Singh and that the Government is consulting stakeholders on the codifying of common law case disclosure requirements. On legal aid for the poor, the Minister agreed with the principle, but felt that we should proceed cautiously in view of the experience in other countries. Nevertheless, he said that the Government was not fully satisfied with the current system and was looking into the feasibility of setting up a public defender's office.
We welcome that action is being taken on the above matters.
For some issues, he cited resource constraints. For instance, he said that as far as recording of statements is concerned, audio-visual recordings are the gold standard but resource issues were a bottleneck.
On compensation for miscarriages of justice, the Minister felt that only vexatious cases deserved compensation. We ask the Government keep an open mind on this, as there could be other cases deserving of compensation.
Minister Edwin Tong talked about the ombudsman and rejected our suggestion. He pointed out that the Government was more concerned with overall outcomes. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang highlighted the efforts made by the Government to support migrant workers in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, since we filed the Motion, many members of the public have reached out to us. They have shared with us their own experiences of being crime victims or suspects or having family members being subject to such experiences.
Questions raised by the public include the following: where is the justice when someone is wrongly accused and had to endure humiliation in investigations, only to be acquitted? Does the prosecution aim to win cases at all costs? Do we treat migrant workers fairly or as modern-day slaves? How is it that the weaknesses in Parti Liyani's case were not picked up by law enforcement, the Prosecution and the trial Judge? How neutral are these agencies, they asked.
Mr Speaker, even if the Government and the ruling Party are not convinced that the system has shortcomings, the fact that the public is asking such questions should not be ignored. It is sad that after all the points made today on where improvements can be made or, in fact, are due, the Government does not even accept that the system has any shortcomings. I believe this is an opportunity to review the justice system with an open mind.
Sir, by filing this Motion, the Workers' Party is not motivated by a desire for heads to roll in the Parti Liyani case. What we hope to achieve is a strengthening of the system so that it is built to last for the future.
To conclude, I would just like to summarise that we cannot accept the amendments proposed because they imply that there are no shortcomings in the system and that there will be no review of the system. As these are key aspects of our original Motion, we are unable to support the amended Motion.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify that what I had said is that we are looking at putting in statutory form the disclosure requirements. I think Ms Sylvia Lim said or attributed to me a different formulation. So, I just want to be clear.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify a comment made by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim on the purport of the amendment. She appears to have understood my amendments as suggesting that the Government does not admit that there was any shortcoming in the past.
That was not my intent. In fact, if anything, Mr Speaker, the point I was stressing in my speech was that there were shortcomings in the past. But the point is, the Government continues to expend effort to improve the system and to ensure there is justice for all.
So, that is really the point I sought to make.
Mr Speaker: Any final clarifications before midnight? The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.
[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this House recognises that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system and affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society and remedy any shortcoming in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Yes, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament would like to have our dissent recorded. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: If you raise your hands, please, it will be recorded.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Thank you. Before I call on the Leader, I would just like to make a few points.
Thank you very much for bearing with us and, thankfully, finishing before midnight. I just want to register my thanks to our staff in Parliament, the security staff and so on, and especially our interpreters, for supporting us up to this point. [Applause.]
And especially, as we were talking about ex-politicians, I would like to make a special call-out to Mr Lau Ping Sum who celebrates his 80th birthday today, in there interpreting for us from English to Chinese and vice versa. [Applause.]
Thank you very much and happy birthday! Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 11.49 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Rooftop Farming in Support of Singapore's \"30 by 30\" Food Sustainability Goal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the \"30 by 30\" goal to secure Singapore's food needs (a) how many HDB rooftop farming sites does SFA intend to set up in the next 10 years; (b) what is the expected yield from these sites; and (c) whether SFA will consider incorporating in the tenders for these sites a requirement to engage the community as well.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore aims to achieve our \"30 by 30\" goal to locally produce 30% of our nutritional needs by 2030, using about 1% of our land. Besides making productive use of our agri-land, such as at Lim Chu Kang, agencies are identifying alternative spaces to repurpose for commercial scale urban farming, including the rooftops of HDB Multi-Storey Carparks (MSCPs). Commercial farming in alternative spaces contributes to food security as it activates pockets of under-utilised space for productive farming.
Following the launch of the pilot MSCP urban farm Citiponics in 2019, interest from the industry and public towards urban farming in community spaces has grown. SFA and HDB awarded the first tender of nine MSCP sites in September 2020 to successful tenderers with innovative and high productivity proposals, such as vertical and climate-controlled farming systems. This is in line with HDB’s Green Towns Programme to intensify greening in HDB estates. As urban farms operating from MSCPs are expected to contribute to Singapore’s \"30 by 30\" goal, farms must commit to and meet a high volume of production. Collectively, the successful tenderers from the first tender can produce up to 1,600 tonnes of vegetables annually.
SFA and HDB are identifying more suitable MSCP rooftops that can be converted for food production and will launch a second tender of sites in the coming months. Agencies will continue to identify more potential MSCP sites and make them available, depending on the level of industry interest.
Besides contributing to food security, urban farming in spaces such as MSCP rooftops benefits the community. For example, these commercial farms may offer employment opportunities for residents. They bring the community closer to local production, thereby raising awareness and support for local produce.
With the ramp up in local production towards the \"30 by 30\" goal, we will need the support of all Singaporeans to buy local produce. Local produce is grown close to our homes, and is therefore fresher, lasts longer and is more sustainable as it incurs lower carbon miles. By choosing locally-produced food, we can all play a part in contributing to Singapore’s food security and save the planet too.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Self-employed Income Relief Scheme to Citizens who Originally Ran Businesses as Self-employed Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether flexibility may be exercised to extend the Self-employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) to Singapore Citizens who originally ran businesses as self-employed persons but later injected their businesses into companies incorporated by them with no employees; and (b) if not, what other schemes may be extended to this group of Singaporeans who are affected by the economic downturn brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic but who do not receive the benefit of SIRS, Jobs Support Scheme or COVID-19 Support Grant.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Self-Employed Person (SEP) Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) helps Singaporean SEPs with less means and family support tide over this period of economic uncertainty. As of end October, close to $1.8 billion has been disbursed to about 200,000 SEPs.
Business owners and shareholder-directors of private limited companies may draw a salary from their companies and do not declare trade income.
Instead of SIRS, the Government has extended the Jobs Support Scheme to cover wages of employees who are also shareholder-directors if their assessable income in the Year of Assessment 2019 does not exceed $100,000, which is broadly comparable to the income criteria for SIRS. About 50,000 shareholder-directors have benefited from this enhancement. This is in addition to JSS support for other local employees in the company.
To help Singaporeans cope with the impact of COVID-19, we have also provided broad-based help to families, such as the Solidarity Payment and the Care and Support – Cash schemes. Those who require further financial support may seek help through the MSF Social Service Offices. MSF has also exercised more flexibility when considering ComCare applications during this period, to ensure affected Singaporeans and their families can get help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility Criteria for Grants Distribution Based on Per Capita Income Per Household","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry is reviewing the eligibility criteria for the distribution of grants based on per capita income per household whereby the 'household' is defined by unique address; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering alternative ways of distributing support grants that can account for breadwinners supporting family members beyond the immediate household so that the sandwiched generation can be assisted through these difficult times.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In light of the adverse economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government has introduced support measures to protect workers and save jobs. These include the Jobs Support Scheme to stabilise our economy and stem unemployment; the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package to help Singaporeans access job opportunities and pick up skills and capabilities; and the Jobs Growth Incentive to support employers to accelerate their hiring of local workforce. The Government has also provided temporary financial support to affected workers through the Temporary Relief Fund, the COVID-19 Support Grant, and the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme.
In designing support schemes, government agencies adopt criteria such as the household per capita income (PCI) or gross household income as proxies of a household’s financial resources and ability to tide through challenging periods. This is to allow us to channel support to those who need it more. For example, applicants to the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) may qualify for CSG if they meet either the household income or per capita household income criteria. For large households with higher expenses, PCI is often more meaningful to allow these households to qualify. Household income criteria is typically based on residential address as household members living together would likely be sharing resources.
For those who miss the qualifying criteria, MSF exercises flexibility when considering appeals for support schemes such as the CSG, taking into consideration the needs and circumstances of the family. For example, when assessing appeals for the CSG, we consider the challenges of sandwiched families who have to support young children, as well as elderly parents who may not be staying with them. We have provided CSG to appellants on this basis. Family members or relatives in other households who are in need may also apply in their own right to be assessed for support grants or ComCare.
We encourage families with extenuating circumstances to approach our Social Service Offices, which will look into ways to support them together with community partners. MSF will continue to review our social assistance schemes regularly and take into account the changing needs of the vulnerable groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Grace Period for Free Parking by Vehicles Ferrying Persons With Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether HDB will consider extending the grace period of free parking to 30 minutes for appointed private vehicles escorting or ferrying persons with disabilities from their homes to a medical facility and back.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: At present, caregivers ferrying persons with disabilities get a 10-minute grace period when they enter HDB and URA car parks, similar to other drivers. Thereafter, prevailing parking charges apply. We support those ferrying persons with disabilities through the carpark label scheme administered by SG Enable.
The car park label scheme allows caregivers ferrying persons with disabilities to use an accessible parking lot for up to one hour, sufficient time for them to help persons with disabilities board and alight safely from their vehicles. Private transport operators who serve persons with disabilities can also benefit from scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Students who Still Do Not Have Access to Digital Devices for Home-based Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number of primary and secondary school students who still do not have access to digital devices to do home-based learning (HBL); and (b) what are the available schemes to ensure that children from less fortunate families have sufficient access to digital devices to do HBL.
Mr Lawrence Wong: When MOE polled students during the Circuit Breaker earlier this year, close to 9 in 10 students already had access to their own devices at home for learning. For those without access, MOE worked closely with schools to loan more than 20,000 computing devices and 1,600 internet-enabling devices to them.
MOE also worked with IMDA during Circuit Breaker to help students from low-income households to apply for devices and internet access via its NEU PC Plus (NPP) programme. From the start of Circuit Breaker till the present, IMDA has deployed close to 10,000 computing devices to needy families with school-going children.
After the end of Circuit Breaker, students who had already loaned school devices were asked to hold onto their devices until the end of the school year, even after face-to-face schooling had resumed, to ensure that they continued to have easy access to devices. New student requests for loan of devices have declined significantly since the end of Circuit Breaker, as have new applications for devices under NPP.
Going forward, access to devices would no longer be an issue for secondary school students. Under the National Digital Literacy Programme (NDLP) that was announced earlier this year, all secondary students will own a device by end-2021. Students from lower-income households will be provided with additional support so that no out-of-pocket payment is needed for the learning device.
For primary school students from low-income households who lack access, MOE and IMDA will continue to work together to help them apply for devices and internet connectivity through NPP. Students under MOE’s Financial Assistance Scheme who cannot afford the NPP co-payment will be fully supported by IMDA’s iNSPIRE Fund. In addition, schools also have sufficient devices to continue loaning them to students for home-based learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Accessibility to Online Learning is Made Available to Children of Vulnerable Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past five years, how many students, from Primary school to undergraduates, have made the request for the provision of personal computers to enable online learning; (b) whether there are students who have financial difficulties and network connections to undertake online learning; and (c) what measures have been taken to ensure that students' accessibility to online learning is made available to children of vulnerable families.
Mr Lawrence Wong: For lower-income students from MOE schools, polytechnics, and ITE, IMDA’s NEU PC Plus (NPP) programme and the MOE Opportunity Fund (OF) are two schemes that support them in obtaining digital devices. In the last five years from 2015 to 2019, close to 20,000 students in MOE schools, and 4,000 students from the polytechnics and ITE benefited from the IMDA NPP programme. Further, about 19,000 polytechnic and ITE students benefitted from the OF for the purchase of devices. Students may access more than one scheme.
Besides financial support from OF and NPP, schools and institutions also lean forward to support their students in other ways. For example, they will loan devices and mobile routers to students who need them for their classroom lessons or home-based learning.
At the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), students from lower-income families can also tap on assistance schemes, or the annual allowances from their scholarships and bursaries, to defray the cost of IT devices. In addition, Autonomous University (AU) students also benefit from schemes such as loans to purchase laptops, or may be provided with second-hand laptops. In the past five years, over 350 AU students have benefited from these AU schemes.
COVID-19 has accelerated our efforts in this area. By end-2021, all secondary students will own a personal learning device (PLD) under MOE’s National Digital Literacy Programme, seven years ahead of MOE’s original timeline. Students from lower-income households will also receive additional support so that there will be no out-of-pocket payment for their PLDs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Jobs Created by Upcoming Electric Car-making Factory in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the setting up of Singapore's first car-making plant (a) how many jobs will be created by this venture; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to grow the electric and autonomous driving industries in the longer term.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: I wish to clarify that Hyundai’s venture is not Singapore’s first car-making plant. Ford and Mercedes Benz used to assemble cars in Singapore until the 1980s.
Nonetheless, the Hyundai Motor Group Innovation Centre in Singapore is an exciting investment in our future of electric mobility. The new facility is projected to manufacture 30,000 electric vehicles per year by 2025. It will also create exciting jobs for Singaporeans, in roles such as Industrial Internet of Things (IoT) engineers, data scientists, cobot technicians and digital supply chain strategists. The actual number of roles is still being finalised.
Electric and autonomous mobility is the future of mobility in a land and carbon constrained world. We will therefore grow the electric and autonomous driving industries in Singapore by attracting investments across the mobility value chain, including from companies like Motional and ST Engineering which are developing and testing autonomous vehicle technology, and Desay SV which is engaged in R&D efforts for vehicle autonomy and automotive cybersecurity. We will also continue building our mobility ecosystem among various industry players, including global OEMs and Tier One automotive suppliers like BMW, Continental and Borgwarner.
The future urban mobility ecosystem will create exciting job opportunities in traditional functions given a new \"spin\" – such as in (i) R&D \t– for example in battery technologies, (ii) design \t– as electric vehicles can take on a different form factor, (iii) manufacturing – enabled by an even higher level of robotics, (iv) maintenance – of a much more IOT and electrified vehicle, (v) sales and support – where smart navigation systems become mainstream; and also new jobs in autonomous driving system development, sensor development etc.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 Circuit Breaker on Demand for HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether demand for HDB rental flats has increased since the circuit breaker started on 7 April 2020 as compared to the corresponding period last year; (b) if so, what is the percentage increase; and (c) whether HDB will consider increasing the supply of rental flats available in response to the economic difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Desmond Lee: From April to September 2020, an average of 240 public rental flat applications were registered per month, an increase over the average of 230 per month for the same period in 2019.
The current supply of rental flats is sufficient to meet the number of registered applications. HDB will continue to monitor the situation and assist those who have no other housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temporary Housing for Individuals Undergoing Divorce Proceedings Or Division of Matrimonial Assets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past 12 months, how many rental or temporary housing have been offered for individuals undergoing divorce proceedings or a division of matrimonial assets; and (b) whether HDB will consider a structured scheme to allow access to temporary housing or rental flats to individuals in such circumstances.
Mr Desmond Lee: From October 2019 to September 2020, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) assisted about 50 individuals who were undergoing divorce with rental housing.
Individuals who have commenced divorce proceedings can apply for rental housing. While matters such as care and control of the children and treatment of the matrimonial property may not be finalised until they receive an interim or final judgment of divorce, HDB will consider the circumstances of each applicant, including their housing options and the needs of the children. HDB will assist them with rental housing if they have no other housing option and no family support. Those in very urgent need of housing can also seek help from the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s shelters while applying for an HDB rental flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Co-Funding for Assisted Conception Procedures Scheme to Private Assisted Reproduction Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Co-Funding for Assisted Conception Procedures (ACP) scheme can be extended to private Assisted Reproduction (AR) centres.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Currently, co-funding for Assisted Conception Procedures (ACP) is available at public Assisted Reproduction (AR) centres. Current utilisation rates at our public AR centres are around 70%, and there is sufficient capacity for couples seeking ACP such as Assisted Reproduction Technology treatments and Intra Uterine Insemination. The wait times are not long as patients should be able to commence on the next cycle once they are assessed to be medically ready. This usually takes two to six weeks.
We recognise that there may be some couples who wish to seek treatment at private AR centres and will study the proposal to extend the co-funding to private AR centres while ensuring charges remain reasonable. In addition, couples who seek treatment at private AR centres can use their MediSave. Up to $15,000 can be withdrawn either from the patient’s or her spouse’s MediSave for ACP, and this helps to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for the procedures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Property Owners Levied Non-owner-occupier Property Tax Rates Despite Residing in Their Own Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance between 2000 and 2020 (a) how many property owners have been taxed with non-owner-occupier property tax rates when they were in fact residing in their own homes; (b) what is the total amount of excess tax paid; (c) why is it necessary for a property owner to declare that he is the owner occupying the property in order to enjoy owner-occupier tax rates instead of these rates being applied by default; and (d) whether IRAS will refund property owners the excess tax paid, even if the incorrect tax rates were discovered after they had moved out of their properties.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Residential properties are subject to property tax, with higher-value residential properties being taxed at higher rates. Owner-occupied residential properties enjoy concessionary property tax rates. Properties which are rented out or vacant do not enjoy this concession. IRAS publicises information on the property tax rates, including the concession, through various platforms such as its website and annual property tax notice.
Property owners are free to buy one or more properties, and choose to live in any or none of the properties they own. Hence, it is necessary for the property owner to inform IRAS about owner occupation to qualify for the concession. We do not have statistics on how many property owners live in their own properties but do not enjoy concessionary tax rates.
That said, IRAS has put in place measures for taxpayers’ convenience. First, IRAS grants concessionary rates automatically to all buyers of HDB and DBSS flats, as well as new ECs. These forms of housing are meant for owner occupation. Second, IRAS has been extending the concession automatically to a buyer of a private property or resale EC bought on or after 1 January 2011, if he is a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident, and neither he nor his spouse is enjoying the concession on any other residential property.
Residential property owners who are granted the concession automatically are required to inform IRAS if the residential property is not being owner-occupied, and the concession will be withdrawn.
For residential properties bought before 2011, there may be cases which could be eligible for the concession, but the owners did not apply for it. IRAS sent letters during a 2012 exercise to invite them to apply for the concession if they were residing in their property.
On whether a property owner can claim the concession and seek a refund of the excess property tax paid after he has sold the property, IRAS will need to look at the specific circumstances. If the Member has any specific case in hand, he can approach IRAS for a review of the case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Workplace Accidents and Injuries as Workforce Returns to Work Given Easing of COVID-19 Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower between July and October 2020, whether the number of workplace accidents and workplace injuries have increased as more workers begin to return to their workplaces.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The non-fatal workplace injury rate in 3Q 2020 was 85 per 100,000 workers, or 2806 injuries. This was lower than the rate of 106 in 3Q 2019, or 3697 injuries, but higher than the rate of 55, or 1919 injuries in 2Q 2020. The increase from 2Q 2020 was due to reduced work activities in the 2nd Quarter due to circuit breaker measures.
For fatal injuries, the 3Q 2020 rate was 0.18 per 100,000 workers, or six fatalities, a slight increase when compared to the 3Q 2019 rate of 0.17, or six fatalities, and the 2Q 2020 rate of 0.14, or five fatalities.
We are concerned with the number of injuries and fatalities. Despite COVID-19, we must continue to press on to strive to eliminate all hazards from the workplace. We are also mindful of the risk that contractors and workers rush to catch up on work and compromise workplace safety. Employers and workers must remain vigilant against the risk of COVID-19, and against the risk of workplace accidents, so that our injury rate for 2020 will be comparable or below that for 2019.
MOM has therefore stepped up engagement and enforcement efforts since the end of circuit breaker. The Workplace Safety and Health Council (WSHC) has engaged over 8,000 companies from industry associations on Safe Restart, through e-forums, webinars and circulars, and outreached to more than 70,000 WSH Bulletin subscribers with Safe Restart reminders, WSH tips and other digital training materials.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of COVID-19 Infections amongst Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many foreign domestic workers (FDWs) and what proportion have tested positive for COVID-19; (b) what is the estimated prevalence of COVID-19 among FDWs; and (c) what precautions are in place to (i) minimise FDWs' exposure to COVID-19 and (ii) protect FDWs from becoming carriers of COVID-19, whether as newly arrived FDWs or as in-Singapore transfer FDWs.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As of 28 October 2020, 139 foreign domestic workers (FDWs) have tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, 109 were imported cases who tested positive while serving Stay-Home Notice (SHN) at dedicated facilities on arrival, with testing at the end of the SHN period. The remaining 30 were locally transmitted cases, with the last of such cases being reported on 19 July 2020. These 30 locally transmitted FDW cases are part of the 2268 total local community cases as of 28 October 2020, and the infection rate of 0.01% among the FDW population is lower than the overall community rate of 0.04%.
Twenty-four out of the 30 locally transmitted FDW cases were linked to a previous case in the employer’s household. In other words, the infection likely spread from the employer’s household member to the FDW. Of the remaining six cases, none had spread to anyone in the employer’s household; one is linked to the Mustafa cluster while the rest do not have any established links.
The Ministry has issued advisories and distributed educational materials to employers and FDWs to remind them to take appropriate measures to minimise FDWs’ exposure to COVID-19. We encourage employers and FDWs to work out arrangements for FDWs to take their rest day on a weekday when public spaces are less crowded. FDWs have been asked to download and activate the TraceTogether app, or to collect the TraceTogether token, to facilitate contact tracing if required. They are encouraged to make use of e-remittance services so they do not have to physically visit remittance agents.
All incoming FDWs are subject to the same entry requirements as inbound travellers with the same travel history. These include serving SHN at a suitable accommodation and testing negative at the end of the SHN period before being released. The vast majority of incoming FDWs are required to undergo pre-departure testing within 72 hours before they depart for Singapore, and serve a 14-day SHN at a dedicated facility upon arrival. We will continue to regularly review our border measures, so as to manage the risk of importation and mitigate transmission to the local community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Incentives Disbursed for Hawkers Go Digital Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Communications and Information under the Hawkers Go Digital programme, what is the total amount of incentives disbursed to date to the hawkers who have adopted digital payment.
Mr S Iswaran: The Hawkers Go Digital programme was launched on 8 June to encourage stallholders to adopt the unified e-payment solution. This initiative aims to reach out to 18,000 stallholders by June 2021. To encourage adoption, an e-payment bonus of up to $1,500 will be given to stallholders who have demonstrated sustained use of the e-payment solution. A bonus of $300 will be paid for each month that they have completed at least 20 transactions on the unified e-payment solution, for up to five months. Transactions must be completed by 31 May 2021.
As of 23 October 2020, 8,100 stallholders are now offering the unified SGQR e-payment solution. A total of $4.8 million has since been disbursed to 5,400 stallholders under the Hawkers Go Digital programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria or Indicators to Assess Mayors and Commuity Development Councils' Functions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what criteria or key performance indicators are used to assess whether the functions of the Mayors and Community Development Councils (CDCs) have been successfully achieved; (b) in the past three years, what is the combined total expenditure of the CDCs; (c) what is the percentage breakdown of how such expenditures are allocated; (d) how many unique schemes have been rolled out by the Mayors and CDCs in the past five years as distinct from schemes administered by the Government and what are these schemes; and (e) what efforts are adopted to ensure co-ordination between financial assistance schemes offered by the CDCs, Comcare and other support schemes provided by the Government.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): The chief aims of the Community Development Councils (CDCs) are to assist the needy, bond the community and strengthen social cohesion in Singapore.
Each Mayor plays a key role in leading their respective CDC and district to achieve these goals. They galvanise residents and the support of diverse community partners, and help the community stay connected, resilient and cohesive.
The CDCs and Mayors form a bridge between residents and the Government, and strengthen Singapore’s social safety net. They function not only as the hands and legs to implement programmes for the community, but are also the eyes and ears to identify emerging needs and gaps in social support.
Being nimble and close to the ground, they have a strong network across the people and private sector to lean upon, and the ability to aggregate local needs and resources, as well as build capabilities in their partners, and connect communities together.
One of the key roles of the CDC is to complement national help schemes and initiatives. To date, the CDCs have developed and administered over 100 CDC local assistance schemes, and this forms about 40% of all CDC programmes. The diverse range of schemes and community programmes are tailored to meet the respective district’s needs and priorities.
Many of these efforts are developed through innovative solutioning and collaborations with community partners. Some of the unique programmes include Central Singapore CDC’s Purple Parade, North East CDC’s Heart Bakers programme, North West CDC’s Club 100, South East CDC’s 5E Programmes (which stands for Easy and Enjoyable activity that Encourages widespread participation within the community which Earns sponsorships for the needy. In doing so, SE CDC also Enlarges the value of the giving and thus Enhance the community ownership and spirit) and South West CDC’s Caregiver Support Fund.
To meet its goals, the CDCs’ annual operating expenditure has been about $40.8 million for the past three years. On average, the CDCs raise about $11.4million in cash annually to support and enable more community programmes on the ground.
In addition, the CDCs have evolved to support and administer social and community services on behalf of the government. For instance, in the national SkillsFuture drive, the CDCs launched \"SkillsFuture Advice\" to promote lifelong learning and bring career advice through roadshows and workshops to Singaporeans. They met the goal of attaining 80,000 unique participants in two years instead of three.
With COVID-19, the role of the CDCs is more relevant than ever - to uplift lives and strengthen community resilience. With the benefit of economies of scale and a close understanding of the ground, the CDCs were able to quickly roll out between February and October 2020, close to 100 local district initiatives that served over 676,000 beneficiaries. They also raised $8.39 million in cash and in kind.
Together, the CDCs and their partners continue to build an important scaffold of support to strengthen Singapore’s social safety net and form a whole-of-community response to leave no one behind in this crisis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Submission of Online Applications for COVID-19 Support Grant Limited to Working Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) why online applications for the COVID-19 Support Grant can only be submitted between 9 am and 6 pm; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider allowing online application 24 hours a day, except for periodic maintenance windows.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) provides assistance and job support to Singaporean & Permanent Resident (PR) employees who have lost their jobs, been involuntarily placed on No-Pay Leave (NPL), or experienced significant loss of salary due to the economic impact of COVID-19.
Since the scheme was launched in May 2020, we have received over 180,000 CSG applications, 96% of which were submitted online. Applications for CSG will remain open until December 2020. The online portal is open every day, including weekends and public holidays, to allow Singaporeans sufficient time and opportunity to apply for assistance. Our assessment is that this has been adequate to meet the needs of most applicants.
Prior to launch, we had considered the possibility of longer operating hours each day, but we eventually decided on daily operating hours of 9am to 6pm, taking into account the need to allow sufficient time each day to closely monitor system performance, perform system maintenance and updates, and troubleshoot problems in a timely fashion to minimise any unplanned downtime and to ensure that applicants would receive a sustainable and reliable level of service. We will continue to monitor the availability and level of service of the online portal, taking into account user feedback.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Implications of Indonesia's Omnibus Law for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether Indonesia's Omnibus Law will have environmental implications for Singapore, specifically on the issue of transboundary haze; and (b) whether the law affects Singapore's strategy in dealing with potential haze problems.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore was free of transboundary haze this year. Apart from the wetter weather conditions this year, Indonesian President Joko Widodo and his government have shown leadership and determination in preventing and fighting land, forest and peatland fires in Indonesia.
We do not interfere with the domestic politics of any foreign country and it is in the sovereign right of a country to introduce laws to meet its domestic needs. We understand that the Omnibus Law on Job Creation was introduced by the Indonesian government to create new jobs and support economic growth.
The Omnibus Law will not affect Singapore’s commitment to work closely with Indonesia, other ASEAN Member States and the international community to address transboundary haze. We stand ready to offer fire-fighting assistance to combat the fires, and deploy them when requested, as we did in 2005 and 2015.
At the regional level, the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre (ASMC) based in Singapore will continue sharing regional weather and haze outlook, and satellite imagery information with ASEAN Member States. The ASMC plays a critical regional role as its technical assessments and updates on the haze situation, along with its meteorological forecasts and data on hotspot activities, support efforts to prevent, detect and fight fires.
Singapore remains committed to working with the region to realise our vision of a haze-free ASEAN. We will continue to participate and contribute actively in all regional haze meetings such as the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) and the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee (MSC) on Transboundary Haze Pollution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quota for Performance Grades in Stack Ranking of Education Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education with regard to the performance management system of stack ranking (a) what is the quota for each of the grades A, B, C+, C, C-, D and E for teachers respectively; and (b) for each year in the past five years, what is the number of teachers who have gotten an A, B, C+, C, C-, D and E grade respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: A fair performance management system differentiates performance and rewards those who put in more effort and achieve more. Such a system reinforces good performance and also encourages those who are performing less well to improve. This has helped us to maintain a high-quality teaching workforce over time.
In an organisation like MOE where the workforce is large and deployed over many schools, it is necessary to ensure some consistency in how performance management is implemented across schools. Generally, our guidelines are that the top one-third or so officers in a ranking population will be the stronger performers and can be awarded A and B grades, while a relatively small group of about 5% would be regarded as the weaker performers and are given C-, D and E grades. The broad middle who are steady performers form about 60% and are given C+ and C grades.
Notwithstanding the ranking guidelines, there is flexibility for deviations from the guidelines, taking into consideration the performance of individual officers and specific circumstances. This ensures that the guidelines are not mechanically applied in a way that demotivates deserving officers who are doing good work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Seniors Placed under Adult Protective Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how many seniors have been placed under Adult Protective Services since the scheme began and what efforts are made to work with the families of such seniors to make them more care-ready.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As our population ages, some individuals may suffer physical or mental infirmities or disabilities, and may not be able to care for themselves. MSF’s Adult Protective Service (APS) was established in May 2015 to protect vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect, such as when their families are unable to provide for their safety and well-being.
APS partners social service agencies (SSAs) such as Family Violence Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres, as well as hospitals, the Police and the Courts to protect vulnerable adults. The Vulnerable Adults Act (VAA) came into effect in December 2018, and provides powers for APS to intervene when a vulnerable adult is assessed to face high safety risk. For example, the VAA allows APS to apply to the Court to place the vulnerable adult in the care of a relative or a suitable fit person, or in a Place of Safety that is operated by an SSA.
Since its establishment until September 2020, APS has investigated 484 cases involving seniors aged 65 and above. About 98% of the cases were resolved with support from the seniors’ families and SSAs. The remaining seniors were assisted through Court orders, such as being cared for in a Place of Safety.
MSF believes that whenever circumstances permit, it is more beneficial for our seniors to be cared for by family members. At the same time, MSF recognises that caregivers may be under stress and encourages them to seek help early. The Government has various financial schemes, such as the Home Caregiving Grant to defray the cost of engaging community caregiving services, and the Caregiver Training Grant for caregivers to learn to better care for their loved ones. SSAs also provide a suite of services ranging from counselling to caregiver training to respite services for caregivers. The aim is to stabilise the family environment and restore the relationships between the seniors and their families and caregivers.
In addition, MSF encourages Singaporeans, including seniors, to identify their donees early through a Lasting Power of Attorney. In the event of a loss of mental capacity, donees will be able to help the seniors make decisions about their future care arrangements.
Caregivers, seniors, and persons in need of someone to talk to about the issues that weigh them down can call the National CARE hotline to receive mental health first aid and the appropriate referrals to social service agencies and public health institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Work by Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the progress of work by the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee; (b) how can the Government help facilitate a win-win partnership between tenants and their landlords to strengthen collaboration and increase the vibrancy and competitiveness of Singapore's retail, food and beverage, and lifestyle sectors; and (c) whether the Government is considering a regulatory and compliance framework as a tool to support a fair code of conduct.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee was formed in June 2020 under the auspices of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF). It aims to develop a tenancy framework and establish industry norms on tenancy practices and terms. Discussions between the landlord and tenant communities have been constructive. The committee has been making progress on long-standing issues relating to rental data transparency, fair conduct on the part of landlords and tenants, and enforcement and dispute resolution.
On the specific issue of compliance, the Pro Tem Committee has been discussing a number of options including self-regulation via an industry-developed code of conduct; or legislation; or a combination of both. Government agencies are closely involved in the process and are working with SBF to help facilitate discussions in the spirit of fairness, transparency and reciprocity.
The Government looks forward to receiving the Committee’s preliminary report soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Banning Electric Shock and Prong Collars in Animal Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider banning the use of electric shock collars and prong collars in animal training; (b) if so, what is the timeline for implementing the ban; and (c) if not why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks will take enforcement action when animal training methods cause unnecessary pain or suffering to animals, regardless of whether devices such as electric shock collars or prong collars are used.
While some countries have banned the use of electric shock collars and prong collars, their use is not prohibited in many other jurisdictions, including Singapore. Some of these jurisdictions have imposed restrictions on their use. For instance, in New Zealand, electric shock collars can only be used to address serious behavioural problems, and when other training methods have failed. In the state of Victoria, Australia, electric shock collars can only be used by veterinarians, qualified dog trainers, or people acting under their instruction.
The multi-stakeholder Rehoming and Adoption Work Group (RAWG), which has been recently established to review practices related to the rehoming and adoption of dogs, will study this issue.
There are many methods available to train animals without compromising their welfare, such as reward-based training, whereby treats, toys, play or attention are used to reinforce desirable behaviour. Importantly, we need to better use science-based training methods in the rehabilitation of the animal and avoid unnecessary pain or suffering to it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of CPF Contribution History in 2020 as Alternative Criteria to Determine Eligibility for GST Vouchers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on incomes in 2020, whether the Government will consider (i) using Singaporean citizens' CPF contribution history in 2020 as an alternative criteria to the current criteria of income earned in 2018, annual value of home, and HDB flat type to determine their eligibility for GST Vouchers and (ii) allowing self-employed persons who are not mandatorily subject to the CPF contribution scheme and who are receiving no or low income in 2020 to receive GST vouchers through reporting their income in 2020.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme provides support to lower- and middle-income households for their expenses. The eligibility criteria help to ensure that the scheme prioritises those who need more support. To ensure this scheme effectively delivers benefits to those who need it more, eligibility for the cash payout is based on the individual's Assessable Income (AI) and the Annual Value of his or her residence, and he or she should not own more than one property.
We use AI as a measure of an individual's means because it includes all forms of income from trade, business, profession or vocation, employment, and rental, and it covers both employees and self-employed persons. AI is more comprehensive, and is a better reflection of an individual's means and income, regardless of source. In comparison, CPF contribution history only takes into account employment and trade income.
In the event of an appeal by a Singaporean who does not meet the scheme criterion but who recently experienced a fall in income, we will look at his or her latest income status as well as other supporting documents such as his or her CPF contribution history, in considering the appeal.
Besides the GSTV, the Government has put in place additional support schemes to help Singaporean workers and families. This includes schemes like the COVID-19 Support Grant, where we look at recent changes in the individuals' circumstances. This combination of flexibility in reviewing appeals for permanent schemes like the GSTV and the introduction of more responsive COVID-related schemes allow us to provide help to those who need it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandated Rest Days for Cleaners without Reducing Take-Home Salary","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether cleaning companies under the Enhanced Clean Mark Accreditation scheme will be required to provide cleaners (whether foreign or local) mandated rest days every month without reducing their take-home salary; (b) if so what is the timeline for implementing this; and (c) if not why not.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The voluntary Enhanced Clean Mark Accreditation Scheme (EAS), administered by the National Environment Agency (NEA) since 1 November 2012, aims to raise the overall standards and professionalism of the cleaning industry through better employment practices and productivity initiatives.
The Employment Act (EA) under the Ministry of Manpower is Singapore's main labour law. It covers employees in Singapore who are under a contract of service with an employer, including local and foreign cleaners. The EA already requires cleaning companies, including those which adopted EAS, to provide their cleaners with statutory benefits, such as granting cleaners one rest day per week, as well as payment for overtime work and work performed on rest days and public holidays.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time for Differently Abled Children to Enrol in Intervention Programme for Infants and Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current average waiting time for children who are differently abled to be enrolled in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) upon application; and (b) what are the recommended teacher to child ratios for (i) EIPIC and (ii) preschools who are managing these children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The current average waiting time for enrolment in an early intervention (EI) centre for the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) is approximately six months. The waiting time in part depends on parents' preferences for specific providers or locations. We are working on expanding the number of EIPIC places over the next few years, which will help bring down the waiting time. We are also rolling out the Development Support Plus programme so that children who have made sufficient progress in EIPIC can transit to receiving EI services in their pre-schools. This will enable more children requiring EIPIC to be served.
Under EIPIC, the teacher to child ratios can vary based on the needs of each child. For children with higher needs, support can be delivered in a one-to-one setting while children with higher functioning could be placed in groups averaging six to eight children. Typically, each group is led by an EI teacher, with at least another EI professional (such as a therapist, psychologist or assistant EI teacher) assisting him/her.
Under the Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA) regulations, pre-schools, including those that enrol children with developmental needs, are required to adhere to minimum staff-child ratios for the different age groups. These ratios range from one infant educarer to five infants for infant care, to one early childhood teacher to 25 children for a kindergarten 2 class. Pre-schools may choose to deploy more staff to support classes with children with developmental needs if preferred.
Pre-schools also receive support from EI professionals. For children under specific programmes like the Learning Support, Development Support or Development Support Plus programmes, EI professionals visit the pre-schools to conduct intervention sessions for children within the centres. EI centres also assist pre-schools by sharing with them strategies on how pre-school teachers can better support these children in the classroom. We are currently studying ways to better support children with moderate to severe developmental needs within pre-schools, under the work of the Inclusive Preschool Workgroup.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the speech given by the Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) during the debate on the Motion regarding Singapore’s Justice System at the Sitting of 4 November 2020: (proc text)]
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Our system protects the Attorney-General from being subject to political pressure. First, with the appointment of the AG. The AG is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister cannot do it just as a whim. The Prime Minister does it in consultation with the Chief Justice, in consultation with the incumbent Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
Appointment is one thing. The next thing is removal. It is very difficult under our system to remove the Attorney-General. Removal is by the President, and this time not acting on advice. It is by the President, acting in his or her discretion, and if it concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice except if the AG is unable to discharge the functions of his office whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause or for misbehaviour. [Please refer to the debate on the Motion on \"Singapore's Justice System\", Official Report, 4 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 13.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
In my speech on the Motion on Singapore’s Justice System I had said that the appointment of the AG was by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. I wish to make a factual correction as the Constitution provides that the appointment of the AG is by the President if he acting in his discretion concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. My reply should therefore read as follows:
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Our system protects the Attorney-General from being subject to political pressure. First, with the appointment of the AG. The AG is appointed by the President, if he or she acting in his or her discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister cannot do it just as a whim. The Prime Minister does it in consultation with the Chief Justice, in consultation with the incumbent Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
Appointment is one thing. The next thing is removal. It is very difficult under our system to remove the Attorney-General. Removal is by the President, not acting on advice. It is by the President, acting in his or her discretion, and if he or she concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice except if the AG is unable to discharge the functions of his office whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause or for misbehaviour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1581,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1582,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1583,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1584,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1585,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 5","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 5.pdf","fileName":"Annex 5.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1586,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 6","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 6.pdf","fileName":"Annex 6.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1587,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 7","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 7.pdf","fileName":"Annex 7.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1588,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 8","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/annex-Annex 8.pdf","fileName":"Annex 8.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4125,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms He Ting Ru","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/vernacular-He Ting Ru Motion 4Nov2020 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"He Ting Ru Motion 4Nov2020 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4126,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Xie Yao Quan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/vernacular-Xie Yao Quan Motion 4Nov2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Xie Yao Quan Motion 4Nov2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4127,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai Motion 4Nov2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai Motion 4Nov2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4128,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/vernacular-4 Nov 2020 - Parl Sec Rahayu Mahzam - Substantive Motion.pdf","fileName":"4 Nov 2020 - Parl Sec Rahayu Mahzam - Substantive Motion.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4129,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201104/vernacular-Desmond Tan Motion 4Nov2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Tan Motion 4Nov2020-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}