Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.09 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, this Constitution (Amendment) Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill.

May I therefore propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on both Bills takes place now? Members are welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill to ensure that the procedural requirements are satisfied.

Mr Speaker: I give my consent.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you, Sir.

Sir, this Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill concern the way in which a statutory declaration, oath and affirmation, or notarial act is to be made or done in Singapore.

Let me first briefly explain what a statutory declaration, oath and affirmation, and notarial act is before I take Members through the key aspects of these Bills.

In brief, a statutory declaration is a written statement that a person signs and solemnly declares to be true. Making a false statutory declaration is a serious criminal offence. For example, producing a false statutory declaration to a Court can result in a jail term of up to seven years.

Apart from use in Court proceedings, statutory declarations may also be taken for a myriad of commercial or regulatory purposes, such as registering a ship, declaring that a company is solvent, transferring a bill of sale or affirming that contractual obligations have been complied with.

Some public agencies may also require certain applications to be supported by a statutory declaration. For instance, applications to the Registrar of Titles for a replacement Certificate of Title must be accompanied by a statutory declaration setting out the circumstances leading to the loss of the original Certificate.

Given the weight that can be placed on facts set out in a sworn statutory declaration and the serious consequences associated with making a false statutory declaration, the law today requires a statutory declaration to be made in a specific form and manner.

Therefore, a statutory declaration must take the form that is set out in the Oaths and Declarations Act. And it must also be made before an authorised person, such as a Commissioner for Oaths, or CFO for short, who will check the identity of the declarant and ensure that the declarant is aware of what he is doing and aware of the consequences of making a false declaration.

Next, an oath or affirmation is a solemn declaration by which a person swears or affirms that what he says is the truth or that he will do as he has promised to do. There is a wide range of circumstances in which a person may be required to take an oath, but most oaths fall within two broad categories.

First, a person, such as a witness, may be required to take an oath before giving evidence, for example, to a Court or tribunal.

Second, a person may also be required to take an oath if he or she is appointed to an office, such as that of a Judge. For example, before assuming office, Supreme Court Judges are required under the Constitution to solemnly swear to faithfully discharge their judicial duties and do right without fear or favour.

Last, I come to notarial functions that are performed by a Notary Public in Singapore, or NP for short. From time to time, individuals or businesses may need to obtain a notarial act from a NP. For example, an individual may need a certified true copy of an original document such as his identity card or academic certificate to apply to a foreign educational institution for further studies; or a business may need a NP to witness the due execution of a document that is meant for use overseas.

The process of obtaining a notarial act is a stringent one. Notaries must keep a full and accurate record of the whole procedure. Further, each notarial certificate issued by the NP is serialised and must be presented to the Singapore Academy of Law for authentication. This mitigates the risk of forgery, safeguards the integrity of the process and provides foreign recipients with the assurance that they need in order to rely on documents that are notarised by a NP in Singapore.

As Members will have gathered from the brief explanation that I have given, historically, and today, the process for making a statutory declaration; taking an oath or affirmation; or obtaining a notarial act, is stringent and subject to several requirements, including the need to, generally, appear in-person before an authorised service provider, such as a Commissioner for Oaths or a Notary Public. Further, the process is often paper-based, involving the use of wet ink signatures. These requirements all help to ensure the integrity of the process – for the reasons I have outlined earlier.

Technology has improved drastically over the years. It is now possible with the touch of a button to see and hear, through video-conferencing software, a person who is on the other end of Singapore – something unthinkable when these requirements were first formulated centuries ago. Society is also increasingly comfortable with relying on digital processes.

Where possible, it is important that the law does not hinder, but instead supports innovation and digitalisation of business processes whilst ensuring that necessary safeguards are maintained or strengthened.

These Bills, therefore, seek to put in place a framework that will enable statutory declarations, oaths and affirmations, and notarisations to be done through electronic means, whilst ensuring the integrity of these processes and maintaining a high degree of security against fraud.

This is in line with the Government’s ongoing efforts to facilitate electronic transactions, by progressively reviewing and updating the relevant legal frameworks in place. Just to give a few recent examples, in 2021, this House enacted: (a) the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act which empowered the Courts to conduct hearings remotely; (b) the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act, which enabled the creation and use of electronic bills of lading; and (c) the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act, which enabled the creation and registration of electronic lasting powers of attorney.

Let me now highlight two key aspects of the framework for Members.

The first aspect is that of electronic meetings with authorised service providers. Where a client is currently required by law and practice to appear before an authorised service provider to make a statutory declaration, take an oath, or obtain a notarial act, the framework under the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill will make it clear that the client and authorised service provider are allowed to meet using stipulated electronic means of communication.

The Bill sets out certain minimum requirements relating to the quality of such electronic means of communication. And we also intend to prescribe further procedural requirements or safeguards that parties must comply with, in subsidiary legislation.

The Board of Commissioners for Oaths and Notaries Public under the Singapore Academy of Law also intends to issue refreshed guidelines that will assist CFOs and NPs in carrying out their functions under this framework. We understand that these guidelines will include guidance on the circumstances in which it may be inappropriate for a CFO or NP to provide their services remotely.

In some cases, such as oaths of office that are taken by officeholders under the Constitution or other Acts, the Bills will make clarificatory amendments so as to provide for greater legal certainty.

The second aspect is that of electronic signing. For statutory declarations, the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill will provide clearly that these instruments can be signed using an electronic signature. There are various types of electronic signatures. As a safeguard for statutory declarations, it will be necessary to only use the type of electronic signature that will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. In deciding the type of electronic signature to prescribe in subsidiary legislation, we will consider factors, such as performance standards, security, reliability and ease of access for Singaporeans. For notarial acts or oaths that must be subscribed with a signature – such as oaths administered in the course of judicial proceedings, or oaths taken by officeholders under the Constitution – the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill do not change the position in relation to how these should be signed.

Notarial acts or oaths arise in a variety of situations, with different needs and circumstances. We will, therefore, leave the precise signing requirements to be determined by the relevant sectorial agency.

Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, let me touch on a couple of points.

The first point is that the framework is enabling and not prescriptive. It provides individuals, businesses and service providers with an electronic option, for the various legal processes that I have spoken of. The framework does not require or mandate the use of such electronic options. This means that the public can continue with their existing in-person and/or paper-based processes if they wish.

It follows that the legislative framework does not oblige Government agencies, a Commissioner for Oath or a Notary Public to provide or adopt an electronic option. For example, public agencies administer or require the taking of statutory declarations or oaths in a wide variety of circumstances. There may be important, or simply practical, reasons for physical processes to continue.

It may be that certain oaths of office or other Constitutional oaths continue to be taken in person as a general rule because of the gravity and solemnity associated with such oaths. In other cases, it may be that the agency in question has some specific policy or practical reason to require a person’s physical presence when taking a statutory declaration or oath.

The second point relates to statutory declarations and notarial acts that have already been made in a process that involved remote witnessing. For example, this may have been done during the COVID-19 pandemic when movement restrictions were in place.

Given the lack of clarity in the current law on whether these processes can be conducted remotely, the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill will make it clear that no statutory declaration or notarial act made or carried out prior to these amendments will be invalidated solely because video conferencing was used. This should address concerns around the validity of statutory declarations or notarial acts made in a process involving remote witnessing before this Bill.

The validation clauses under the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill apply only to those statutory declarations and notarial acts that were done using a live video or live television link. So, for example, a statutory declaration or notarial act that was done only by telephone will not be validated.

The validation clauses also do not affect a person’s right to challenge the validity of a statutory declaration or notarial act on the basis that some other requirement, apart from the in-person witnessing requirement, was not met.

The framework I have just outlined is crafted to strike a balance between convenience and efficiency on the one hand and safeguarding the integrity of the process on the other hand. The Bills have also been designed to be as technology neutral as possible, with details devolved to subsidiary legislation, so that the framework and its associated safeguards can be updated from time to time to keep pace with technological developments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4.21 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the advancement of technology, it is useful that the Government is considering using such initiatives to allow certain oaths to be taken through live video or television link, instead of in person. This would enhance convenience, efficiency and accessibility for the oath takers and the oath administrators. However, I seek a few clarifications in two broad areas: authentication and contingencies.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, on authentication. With the advent and advancements of artificial intelligence (AI) how do we prevent deep fakes or impersonations from compromising the integrity and validity of the oaths? In particular, will there be other means of verifying their identity and authenticity?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, on contingencies. What happens if there is a power failure, a network disruption or a technical glitch for these live links? How do we ensure that the feed is adequately fast, clear and secure for the oaths to be taken smoothly? How do we build in contingencies in such situations? And associated with this, will we allow overseas live links to take place and, if so, under what conditions and safeguards?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this Bill is a positive step towards leveraging technology for public service delivery. Notwithstanding, we must be mindful of the potential challenges and risks involved, given the increasing sophistication of deep fake AI technology. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.24 pm until 4.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 2) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.45 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party (WP) supports the proposed amendments in our Constitutional Amendment Bill today, to allow oaths under the specified Articles to be taken via a live video link or live television link created using a remote communication technology that allows the person administering the oath to maintain visual contact and communicate with the person making an oath, confirm the identity of the person taking oath and if the oath is to be subscribed, verify by inspection, the oath to be subscribed.

Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a practicing Notary Public. I have also spoken to fellow legal practitioners who are currently notaries and commissioners for oaths in the course of preparing for my speech.

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments include allowing our notaries to exercise their power or function through electronic means of communication and specifically, this is in the function of the notaries when persons appear before them to make an oath or declaration or when executing documents before the notaries or when documents are required to be certified correct copies by notaries.

The new sections 4A and 4B provide for the new requirements and criteria when notaries are signing or sealing notarial acts via electronic means of communication, such as live video link. Section 4A provides that such electronic means of communication should allow the notaries to (a) communicate with the person who is executing the documents or making an oath or affirmation, as well as any witness or interpreter present; (b) confirm the identity of the relevant person and any witness or interpreter; and (c) verify by inspection any document to be signed or sworn. The new section 4A(3) also allows notaries to rely on any electronic means of communication created by remote communication technology as allowed under this Bill in the course of issuing a notarial certificate of the nature and the authenticity of a particular document.

Mr Speaker, COVID-19 taught us many things, including having many online options to settle what we used to have to perform face-to-face. Work meetings are one. In fact, the rules for Commissioner for Oaths were pragmatically altered to allow Commissioners for Oath to do the commissioning of affidavits via video conferencing. During such online commissioning, Commissioners for Oaths are required to verify through visual inspection, via video conference of the deponent and his or her identity document, and that the deponent is who he or she said she is. The rules also require, among other things, the Commissioner to maintain visual contact with the deponent during the commissioning or executing process, and in effect, confirm that the deponent has signed the same document.

For good order, may I clarify with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, whether the proposed amendments in section 11, for the affirmation of statutory declaration by remote communications means such as video links, will apply to Commissioners for Oaths administering statutory declarations or whether there is an intention to add a similar clause to the current rules governing Commissioners for Oaths, allowing for the commissioning of affidavits via video conferencing?

Mr Speaker, it is noteworthy that unlike for the commissioning of affidavits by Commissioners for Oaths during COVID-19, the Government did not, at that point in time, deem that it was necessary to allow notarisation by live video link or any type of remote electronic means of communication. I recall that it was challenging for many notaries to perform notarial work during COVID-19, especially in the early days of COVID-19, even though there was still demand for such work. Notarisations were still required, especially for documents to be used abroad for a variety of reasons, notwithstanding COVID-19. A variety of business, legal and even personal transactions still had to be performed, requiring notaries to assist with the execution of documents.

During the circuit breaker days, not all notaries were officially allowed – at least initially – to do their work in their offices. Staff had to stay at home. Arranging notarial appointments can be physically challenging, even when the work was legitimate and necessary. The proposed changes in this Bill would have provided good options for notaries, even as the proposed changes still have some inherent challenges which I will discuss briefly below.

Mr Speaker, an important issue is the verification of the identity of the person executing a document before a notary, especially if such a person is not known to notary or may not be recognised by the notary from previous encounters. I will call this other person who is executing a document, "the relevant person", for the remaining part of my speech.

The notary will need to look at the original identification documents of such a person, often keeping a copy of such documents for records purposes. However, for foreigners who come with their foreign passports as proof of identity, especially coming to see the notaries for the first time or on a one-off basis, notaries often have no choice but to give the benefit of doubt that the passports are genuine, even if they have no idea what the passport should even look like or if it is authentic.

Similarly, when clients come in with what they claim to be original documents for notaries to certify copies of such documents, notaries will not always be in a position to ascertain on the spot whether such documents are genuine or fake. They have to take the word of the client that they are genuine and notarise a certified true copy of it.

The above are already the common experiences of notaries prior to the proposed amendments, which we are looking at today. I think the new amendments allowing notaries to notarise via a live video link may in some cases make it even more difficult for a notary to verify the relevant person's identity, when executing documents before a notary via video link, or to verify the authenticity of documents. This is especially as the notary is not familiar with the relevant person, and it is not easy to cite and verify the identification document or the documents which are the subject of notarial acts by just looking at the screen. The notary does not even get to touch or flip the documents.

Some practitioners also shared with me that for online commissioning of affidavits, they may have the added reassurance that the clients or deponents were introduced by their own lawyers who helped to prepare the affidavits and these lawyers may be personally known to the Commissioners for Oaths or have regularly brought their clients to the same Commissioner for Oaths for affirmation of oaths. This may not be the case for much of the notarial work.

Further, a notary is only able to exercise his or her jurisdiction as a notary when a notary and the relevant person signing a document before the notary are both in Singapore. It is not necessarily easy to determine whether a relevant person is in Singapore or not when a notarial transaction is being performed online. It will certainly be easier to require physical meeting with a client. In short, it will not be easy for the notary to always avoid any fraudulent attempts on the part of the relevant person in some of the aspects that I have discussed above.

Some practitioners may understandably be concerned, that as a matter of professional liability, their conclusions regarding the identity, the whereabouts of the relevant person or even regarding the authenticity of the documents in question are later contradicted by subsequent evidence coming to light after that.

But the relatively low fees they are supposed to charge as required by the authorities as compared to the fees of notaries in civil law countries, or to even the usual hourly charges lawyers may charge for other types of work. It may not be fair for notaries to bear the risk of having to ascertain certain facts when it would not be cost-effective or even fully plausible for them to do so.

It is interesting to note that the COVID-19 guidance on remote notarisation document in the United Kingdom (UK) provide some useful protection for the notary in the areas we have discussed. For example, it provides, among other things, that "the remotely located individual must demonstrate that he or she is physically in England or Wales" and "the notary should not be considered and should not describe himself or herself as an attesting witness to the document certified by him".

Such provisions, by way of example, will give fair protection to notaries. I hope that the authorities can incorporate similar guidelines in any subsidiary legislation or rules for notaries.

A possible alternative solution will be to have a special jurat or prescribed wording on the document to be executed by the signing client before the notary for the relevant person to declare and confirm his or her own identity and the location he or she was in. Additionally, such declaratory wording by the relevant persons can even be subject to penalties for false declarations and acknowledgment of being subject to such penalties in the event of false declarations. Of course, such penalties will require further changes to the law.

Mr Speaker, some of the challenges or situations I have described above may also apply to the other non-notary parties administering an oath or statutory declarations under the proposed amendments if the relevant persons are not known to the persons administering the oath or statutory declaration in advance of the oath-taking.

Mr Speaker, in summary, some of the issues I have raised are already encountered during current face-to-face notarisations, but arguably, the risk may be further enhanced when notaries perform notarial acts by remote means such as by live video link as I have explained above. I hope that the authorities will take cognisance of the risk and issues raised and will not accord an impractically high standard of care on notaries in expecting them to be professionally liable, should the identity of the relevant persons or the location of the relevant persons or even the authenticity of the original documents provided be subject to a deliberate misrepresentation of fraudulent conduct on a part of the relevant person themselves.

Finally, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the proposed changes in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954 and the Presidential Elections Act 1991 for oaths to be administered through electronic means of communication created by remote communication technology will also allow such oaths to be administered by Commissioners for Oaths to deponents en masse, as opposed to being administered singly? Assuming of course that the verifications of identity are done appropriately, and the administration is properly done online with unblocked line of sight, allowing such commissioning en mass online may truly capitalise the capability of e-communication means to reach many deponents all at once.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I hope the authorities will study the risks and suggestions I have raised and to provide appropriate guidance to practitioners to navigate the new provisions and to help them avoid the possible risks and pitfalls which may arise. I hope that the authorities will not impose an impractically high and onerous standard of care expected of practitioners in complying with the new provisions. I do take note that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has highlighted that this will not be prescriptive.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill. I also support the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 2) Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

4.56 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I declare my interest in speaking on this topic as a practicing lawyer. I am also a Commissioner of Oath and a Notary Public.

The role of a Commissioner of Oath is set up in section 68 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. Broadly speaking, a Commissioner for Oath administers oaths for any affidavit or affirmation, swear executors and administrators, and take and receive statutory declarations.

The role of a Notary Public is set up in a Notaries Public Act 1959. Members of the public will usually associate a notary public as a senior lawyer who is called upon to certify documents for use overseas or to administer any oath or affirmation in connection with any affidavit or statutory declaration which is used in any court or place outside Singapore.

Statutory declarations and affidavits are required by law for a number of legal and business matters. Under various regulations in Singapore, an applicant may be required to make certain statutory declarations and affidavits for the purposes of their business or tax-related matters.

For correlated matters, deponents are required to swear or affirm affidavits for use in Court. As making false oath in Court proceedings and making false statutory declarations is an offence, the deponent would usually have to appear before a Commissioner for Oaths to enable the commissioner to verify the deponent's identity and to ensure that the deponent understands the contents of the document that they are signing. In a case where the affidavit or declaration is for use in an overseas court, the notary public performs a similar function.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Health (MOH) had introduced various measures like the circuit breaker, heightened alert, social distancing and work-from-home so as to break the chain of viral transmission. However, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses need to continue to operate. Life has to go on for many people.

This has affected the legal processes because businesses still need their staff to swear or affirm affidavits for Court proceedings. Companies still need their senior management to sign documents before a Notary Public for use overseas; sometimes for incorporation of businesses overseas, sometimes, to sign reports for the purposes of reporting to regulatory authorities overseas.

As a Commissioner for Oaths and a Notary Public, I had received many queries from deponents to ask whether they are allowed to affirm and sign affidavits, statutory declarations or other documents without physically being present before me. Deponents and applicants point to the fact that they are having meetings and discussions via electronic modes of communications like Microsoft Teams and via Zoom.

There were also regulations which encouraged listed and unlisted companies to conduct their general meetings via electronic means. This is to keep physical interactions and COVID-19 transmission risk to a minimum, which remain important in the long term even as safe distancing regulations have now been eased.

In April 2021, the Rules of Court were amended to allow for affidavits to be affirmed by a deponent appearing before a Commissioner for Oaths through a video link or live television link. The rules specify that the Commissioner for Oaths should be able to confirm that the person who signs the document is the person that he claims to be and that the document that he signs, together with all the exhibits attached thereto, is the same document containing the same exhibits that the Commissioner himself will later sign.

These rules, however, do not apply to oaths or other documents signed before a Notary Public.

Sir, modern video technology has made great advances over the past years. It is no longer the same as 20 years ago, when you can only rely on expensive telephone calls to keep in touch with overseas relatives or friends. I know of many parents who video call their children studying overseas on a regular basis to chat with them.

In the past, businessmen would rely on Skype or FaceTime video calls to carry out their meetings. Today, we have WhatsApp, WeChat, Teams and Zoom video conferencing platforms, just to mention a few.

Sir, we should not shy from adopting technology to allow deponents to affirm or swear their documents using modern technology as long as the Commissioner for Oaths or the Notary Public is able to clearly ascertain the identity of the deponent and to verify his signature on the documents. We should allow documents to be signed virtually so that in the event of future crises, where we are required to stay away from the office, we would still be able to function effectively using video technology.

I just wish to seek two clarifications from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether oaths and affirmations administered by Consular Officers are also allowed to be done virtually? Secondly, would it be more efficient if we were to allow such changes to be effected through subsidiary legislation? For example, could the Parliament not authorise the Minister to make subsidiary legislation to allow for oaths and affidavits to be signed by a Commissioner or Notary Public to be done virtually instead of having to amend all these laws via Parliament?

Save for the above two clarifications, I support the Bill. I support the various amendments to the Constitution and other Acts to allow for the administration of oaths through virtual means.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.04 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will introduce a framework for electronic signing of oaths, declarations and notarisations. The framework will allow persons making statutory declarations, making oaths and affirmations or notarising documents to do so over video link. This move away from paper-based processes will bring time and cost savings.

I have three clarifications on the safeguards for the framework.

My first clarification is on the interpreter's involvement. Interpretation adds another step in the communication process. This can contribute to additional complexity if done over video link. The risk of miscommunication may be higher for cases where specialised interpretation is needed, for example, for persons with special needs or disabilities.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify if an interpreter has to be present in person with the client making the statutory declaration, oaths or affirmations? If the interpreter is allowed to be present over video link, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what steps the Commissioner or Notary Public should take to ensure that the interpretation and communication is accurately done?

My second point is on the responsibility of a Commissioner or Notary Public to verify the independence of a client. The risk of clients making oaths or affirmations under undue pressure is always present, even in in-person affirmations or notarisations. However, where the Commissioner or Notary Public is only able to observe the client over video link, the risk is higher.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what steps a Commissioner or Notary Public should take to ensure that the client signs any documents independently and without any undue pressure? For example, must a Commissioner or Notary Public take additional steps to verify the persons in the room with the client and the relationships of these persons with the client? Relatedly, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on the circumstances where a Commissioner or Notary Public should decline to take the oath or affirmation over video link?

My last point is on the security of communication links. The Bill does not specify the types of communication technology or platforms that can be used for the live video or television link. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether there will be any requirements on the security of the platforms that will be permitted? For instance, must the platforms have end-to-end encryption to protect the video transmission? Allowing remote oaths, affirmations or notarisations may open up a new avenue for scammers to solicit personal data. Are there any methods in which clients can easily identify if the video links for oaths, affirmations or notarisations are valid?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

5.06 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Sir, I thank Members who spoke in support of the Bills. Let me now address the questions that were raised.

First, Mr Dennis Tan asked whether the amendments to section 11 apply to Commissioners for Oaths (CFOs), administering statutory declarations. The answer is yes – the section 11 amendments are intended to apply to CFOs administering statutory declarations.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we can guard against fraud and impersonation. Mr Louis Ng asked what steps CFOs and Notary Publics (NPs) should take to ensure that the client is not under undue pressure over video link. Mr Dennis Tan commented that the use of electronic means of communication may come with some difficulties and asked that we do not increase the standard of care expected of CFOs and NPs.

As I mentioned during my opening speech, the need to ensure the continuing integrity of the various processes was a key consideration when developing the electronic framework. The possibility of fraud, impersonation and undue pressure is not unique to the electronic space. Identity fraud and forgery can happen in the real world.

To guard against this, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) has existing guidelines which advise CFOs and NPs to take steps to verify the identity of the person before them, for example, by requiring the person to produce a photo ID.

Nonetheless, we recognise that the adoption of technology introduces new ways in which fraud can be carried out. Impersonation through deepfakes, which Mr Yip has mentioned, is one possibility that we need to be on our guard against.

Technology also has its limitations. It is probably easier for a person to exert undue pressure on a client in the same room without a CFO's or NP's knowledge when the CFO or NP is communicating with the client by video link instead of in-person.

So, as mentioned earlier, the Bills set out some minimum requirements that the electronic link must satisfy. One requirement is that the electronic link must enable the person who is administering the oath or statutory declaration to confirm the identity of the client. Further requirements may also be prescribed in subsidiary legislation under the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill, or the ODN Bill. These requirements can be reviewed and updated from time to time to keep pace with technological developments and to address new ways of committing fraud.

We will also work with the Singapore Academy of Law to update the existing guidelines for CFOs and NPs, so that the CFOs and NPs are equipped with the practical know-how to conduct transactions in a secure electronic environment.

When formulating the revised guidelines, we will bear in mind the issues of fraud and impersonation which Mr Yip has raised. We will also bear in mind the need to guard against undue influence.

With this in mind, CFOs and NPs will likely be required to verify whether there are any other persons in the room with the client, and if so, who they are – a step that Mr Ng had alluded to and a step which CFOs are required to take today when commissioning affidavits remotely.

All this being said, laws and guidelines are not in themselves sufficient. Those who are entrusted with the responsibility to administer the oath or statutory declaration must continue to be vigilant and to take the necessary steps to satisfy themselves of the identity of the person taking the oath or making the statutory declaration and that the person is not under undue influence.

With regard to Mr Dennis Tan's point on keeping to the existing standard of care, the revised requirements and guidelines are unlikely to result in significant additional burden to CFOs and NPs. Any specific requirements that are put in place will be those that are necessary to safeguard the integrity of the various processes.

In a related vein, Mr Ng asked whether there are methods by which clients can verify if the video links for oaths, affirmations and notarisations are valid, rather than a scam.

The best defence against scams is a vigilant and discerning public. Members of the public should take care to verify that the service provider they are engaging is legitimate and is not a scammer. In this regard, the public can visit the SAL's website today to check whether a person is indeed a CFO or NP.

As with the use of any other online service, members of the public who wish to conduct transactions remotely should also keep a lookout for tell-tale signs of scams. For example, they should check that any links that they receive are sent from the email address of the CFO or NP that they have been communicating with, and that the links point to an established video conferencing platform. If in doubt, members of the public should verify the authenticity of any links received through a separate channel such as a phone call with the CFO or NP.

Mr Yip asked about the reliability of the electronic link and what happens if the electronic link is disrupted. Mr Ng also asked whether there are any requirements as to the security of the permitted platforms and whether, for instance, they must be secured with end-to-end encryption.

The Bills are not prescriptive of the specific electronic platform that parties must use or how fast, clear or secure the electronic link must be. Instead, the Bills set out broad outcomes that the electronic link must be capable of achieving. Specifically, the electronic link must enable the service provider to communicate with the client, confirm the client's identity and verify any document that is to be signed.

An electronic link will not meet these minimum requirements if it is of such poor quality that the service provider is unable to properly make out the client's face, or if it keeps dropping such that parties are unable to communicate properly. In such cases, parties will have to try again with a better connection, or fall back to an in-person meeting.

As for the security of the electronic platform, it is up to the client and service provider to agree on an electronic platform that both are comfortable with using and that will best safeguard the confidentiality of the transaction. The client may also request for an in-person meeting instead.

I should add that even in the absence of technical difficulties or concerns about confidentiality, it will still be open to any party to end the remote session at any time and request for an in-person meeting. For instance, the service provider may do this if he or she feels that something is amiss.

Next, Mr Yip asked whether an overseas live link is allowed – I understand this to mean a scenario where one or even both parties to the process are not physically present in Singapore. For statutory declarations and notarisations, both the service provider and the client must be in Singapore before they can rely on the electronic framework that is set out under the ODN Bill. This is consistent with the position under existing law.

There is an existing framework providing various options for overseas Singaporeans who need to make a statutory declaration or who need a document to be notarised. For instance, they may approach a notary public in that country or seek assistance from a Singapore Overseas Mission.

For oaths, I mentioned earlier that our laws provide for oaths to be taken in a wide range of different processes and circumstances. Requirements such as who must take an oath, who the oath must be taken before and the form of words that must be used are set out in those existing laws. What these amendments do, is to make clear that any witnessing requirement for an oath can also be satisfied through the use of electronic means of communication such as videoconferencing.

So, apart from making clear that the use of the stipulated electronic modalities is acceptable, the Bills do not make changes to the frameworks under existing law. Therefore, to Mr Yip's question on whether any specific oath can be taken when one or more persons involved in the process is physically outside Singapore, this is context specific and must be determined with reference to the legislation governing the process in question.

For example, in the case of a witness who is appearing before Court, it is possible under the rules governing court procedure for the witness to be overseas and to take his oath and give evidence to a Singapore Court through live video link. However, this will be subject to the grant of permission by the Court. There are also existing rules and requirements on this in the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.

Likewise, to Mr Dennis Tan's question on whether an oath may be administered en masse to polling or counting agents, this must also be determined with reference to the existing legislative provisions under the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act. The amendments under these Bills do not change the existing position under these Acts.

The manner in which oaths are administered for polling and counting agents – including whether video link is used in the first place – is something that the Elections Department will decide, depending on their assessment of what is most appropriate, to ensure that the integrity of the election process, as a whole, is not undermined.

Next, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether consular officers may administer oaths and affirmations or perform notarial acts through virtual means. The powers of a consular officer to administer an oath or affirmation, take an affidavit or perform a notarial act are set out in the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act 1968, or the DCOA.

Today, consular officers only perform such functions in-person. These Bills do not affect the existing position under the DCOA. We are aware overseas Singaporeans sometimes face difficulties obtaining notarial services in-person at our overseas Missions. Together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), we are studying possible ways, including by electronic means, to address such difficulties.

Next, Mr Louis Ng asked several queries relating to interpreters. Mr Ng asked whether an interpreter has to be present in person with the client. The Bills do not require this. It is possible for the CFO or NP, client and interpreter to be at three separate physical locations. Mr Ng asked what steps the CFO or NP should take to ensure that the interpretation and communication is accurately done.

Today, CFOs and NPs are already required to take steps to safeguard the integrity of the process when it is done in person. Similar requirements will continue to apply under the electronic framework. For example, CFOs and NPs may be required to ensure that they can hear and see both the client and the interpreter simultaneously. The specific steps CFOs and NP will be required to take will be set out in either subsidiary legislation or in the refreshed guidelines to be issued by the Singapore Academy of Law.

Ultimately, however, it will be up to each individual CFO and NP to exercise their professional judgment and experience, to satisfy themselves that the contents of the relevant document have been properly interpreted. If the CFO or NP is, at any point in time, not satisfied with the integrity of the process, the CFO or NP should stop the process, and request that the statutory declaration or oath or affirmation, be made or taken physically in person instead.

Finally, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if remote commissioning or remote notarisations can be enabled through the promulgation of subsidiary legislation by the Minister.

In the present case, amendments to primary legislation are necessary because we are making changes to certain requirements currently found in primary legislation. Nonetheless, going forward, the Bills do provide the Minister with the necessary rule-making powers to adjust the electronic framework using subsidiary legislation. As I have mentioned, the Minister will be able to use subsidiary legislation to prescribe specific requirements that must be satisfied. These requirements will be reviewed from time to time, to keep pace with technological developments and address new ways of committing fraud.

Mr Speaker, I believe that I have answered all the questions posed by Members. Sir, with that, I beg to move.

5.18 pm

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.

Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the arm rest start to blink.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker: Take a vote. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Desmond Choo: Mr Speaker, I would like to press "yes." My vote is not registered.

Mr Speaker: Your name is missing? Okay, Mr Desmond Choo, we will add that in.

Mr Speaker: So, I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 83 "Ayes"; zero "Noes"; zero "Abstentions". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After one minute –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time."

Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly, in order to register their vote in the system.

Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or is displayed incorrectly on the screens? I do not see any.

5.31 pm

Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are now 83 "Ayes"; zero "Noes"; zero "Abstentions". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.