Coroners (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.31 pm

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the Coroners Act was introduced as a standalone Act on coronial matters in 2010. Before that Act, Coroner's Inquiries were dealt with under the Criminal Procedure Code. The 2010 Act updated our coronial system to clarify its role and also, strengthen its procedures, so that it could better serve the public interest.

The Act made three key changes. First, the Coroner's Inquiry became fact-finding, rather than fault-finding. Second, the Coroner was empowered to tap on the technical expertise of forensic pathologists or assessors, to facilitate more effective coronial investigations. Third, it re-scoped the Coroner's jurisdiction, giving it a clearer focus.

This Act had served us well over the last decade. In that period, however, through usage, we have received some feedback that some aspects of the Act could be further streamlined, enhanced and allow for greater flexibility.

This Bill seeks to do so in two ways: first, to make viewing of the body by the Coroner discretionary rather than mandatory in all cases; second, to empower the Minister for Law to exempt selected deaths from certain provisions of the Act. Let me take Members through these two broad changes.

Currently, section 12 of the Act requires the Coroner to view the body as soon as possible, in all cases, after a death is reported to him. This is to ensure that the deceased is correctly identified. However, today, the viewing of the body by the Coroner may not be necessary in all cases in order to correctly identify the body. We have other safeguards, which use technology to ensure the correct identification of bodies.

Today, when a death is reported to the Police, the following steps take place. The Police Investigation Officer (IO) will investigate the deceased's identity at the scene by, for example, interviewing the next-of-kin, and also obtaining the deceased's NRIC or passport. The Police IO will then record the deceased's particulars on a tag, which will be attached to the body at the scene. At the mortuary, the Police IO will present the deceased's NRIC or other identification documents to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) staff for registration. Two additional body tags will also be attached to the body in the mortuary: first, a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag to track the body's movement within the mortuary; and, two, a QR code body tag to confirm the deceased's identity.

A Body Identification Form (BIF), which includes details such as the deceased's full name and NRIC number, will be generated upon registration. A photograph of the deceased's face and the body tags will also be taken and attached to the BIF. The same Police IO, who recorded the deceased's particulars at the scene, will verify the accuracy of the BIF, before the BIF is sent to the Coroner. The Coroner will then check the BIF against the report filed by the Police IO.

These steps and safeguards are sufficient to ensure correct identification of the deceased. Indeed, as far as we can tell, there have been so far no cases of misidentification since this set of protocols, processes and safeguards were put in place.

Clause 2 of the Bill, which makes the body-viewing by the Coroner discretionary, will (a) expedite the release of the body to the family; and (b) save resources for the Police, HSA and the Coroner. The Coroner will still be able to view the body if the Coroner considers this to be necessary. For example, the Coroner may wish to view the body in a case where foul play is suspected, or where the death may have wider implications on international relations.

In addition, the amendment will not affect the Coroner's duty to carry out a preliminary investigation into the cause of and circumstances connected with the death. During the preliminary investigation, the Coroner will consult the HSA forensic pathologist and the Police IO. The Coroner will generally ask the Police IO about the scene investigations and any witness accounts. Where the deceased's identity is unclear, the Coroner may then direct further steps, such as checking missing persons records, fingerprint identification and also forensic analysis, as may be appropriate. The forensic pathologist will generally study the CT scan carried out on the body in the mortuary and the deceased's medical records, to determine the possible cause of death.

Sir, I next move on to the next tranche of amendments under the Bill. This is introduced by the new section 17A. It aims to deal with a situation where the deceased, firstly, had sustained an injury, contracted a disease or suffered a condition outside Singapore, that apparently caused the death; or, second, held certain positions in a foreign state, such as being a government minister; or was the spouse or child of persons holding certain positions in a foreign state. In such situations, it is possible that a foreign state may request Singapore not to conduct a post-mortem examination on the body, so that the foreign state may itself carry out its own examination.

At present, under the scope of our Act today, it is not possible to accede to such requests. The Act requires the Coroner to certify the cause of death based on the findings of the Coroner's Inquiry – if one is held – or based on the available evidence if a Coroner's Inquiry is not held. However, there may be some cases where a post-mortem examination might be necessary to determine the cause of death, for example, if there are no external visible manifest signs of injury or disease. In such cases, a post-mortem examination must be carried out before the Coroner can release the body.

The new section 17A proposed provides flexibility for Singapore to accede to requests in appropriate cases, by allowing the Minister to issue a certificate to exempt the death from certain provisions of the Act.

In order for this to happen, three conditions must be fulfilled.

First, the Minister must be satisfied that the deceased had sustained an injury, contracted a disease or suffered a condition, outside Singapore, that apparently caused the death. Alternatively, the Minister must be satisfied that the deceased had certain positions in the foreign state, such as being a government minister, or was the spouse or child of certain persons in such positions.

Second, a foreign state must make a request for the Minister's certificate – so it is triggered by the foreign state; not by any individual, but by the foreign state – and give an undertaking regarding the retention or transport of the body, or any other matter, that the Minister may require.

Third, the Minister must be satisfied, after having regard to the circumstances of the case and any undertaking given by the foreign state, that it is not in the public interest for the provisions of the Act to apply to the deceased. In other words, the assessment is made as to whether there is a public interest, notwithstanding the request by the foreign state, for the examination to take place in Singapore.

In deciding whether to issue a certificate, the Minister may consider various factors, such as the forensic pathologist's views on the death; the Police's investigative findings on the death; the Public Prosecutor's views as to the likelihood of any criminal prosecutions in relation to the death and the likely impact of an exemption on such prosecutions. And fourthly, the purpose for which the request was made by the foreign state. If the Minister issues a certificate, a post-mortem examination must not be conducted and the body must be released immediately to the foreign state.

The Bill does not change the default position under the Act, which is that the Coroner will investigate deaths falling within the Coroner's jurisdiction. It is only in exceptional cases that the default position may be departed from under the new section 17A; and the three conditions I have mentioned above must be met and, in particular, I stress that the Minister must be satisfied that it would not be in our public interest for the usual coronial process to apply to the deceased.

Sir, in conclusion, this Bill streamlines the coronial process and introduces greater flexibility, and also represents the latest instalment in our efforts to improve on the coronial system, to better serve the public interest. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.40 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. I only have one area of clarification that I seek from the hon Minister. The Minister proposed to vest with him the power to exempt certain deaths from the application of the Coroners Act. Principally, the deaths that are proposed to be exempted from the Act are persons who died in Singapore, arising from conditions contracted outside Singapore or are for persons who are or were part of foreign government; this includes the spouse or child of the person too.

My concern is how this proposal squares with the existing framework of the Coroners Act dealing with the Public Prosecutor's powers.

When the hon Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Law, Prof Ho Peng Kee moved the Coroners Bill in 2010, he stated, as recounted by the hon Minister, that the Coroner's role is purely fact-finding. It is not the job of the Coroner to decide who is criminally responsible for the death. He stressed that it is the Public Prosecutor who has the constitutional responsibility of who should be prosecuted for being responsible for the death.

That was why the current Act provides for the Public Prosecutor to have wide-ranging powers, which includes the power to direct a Coroner to order a post-mortem examination, direct a forensic pathologist to investigate the cause of and circumstances connected with the death and direct a Coroner to hold an inquiry into any death occurring in Singapore.

I am concerned about a situation where the Minister and the Public Prosecutor may not be ad idem on the issue of whether the death should be exempt from the Act. Would it not be preferable for the Minister to be only allowed to use his power, as contemplated under this Bill, only after the Public Prosecutor had consented.

This is the case in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA). As Members would know, the CLTPA may be invoked by the Minister to detain a person who is believed to have engaged in criminal acts affecting public safety, peace and good order. This same person may well be subject to prosecution by the Public Prosecutor, exercising his constitutional powers. That is why it is provided in the Act that the Minister may only order a detention upon procuring the Public Prosecutor's consent. In fact, it is expressly provided in the Act that nothing in that Act derogates from the powers of the Public Prosecutor with regard to the control and direction of criminal prosecutions.

I will be grateful for the hon Minister's explanation on this matter. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.

6.43 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to make two changes to the investigations of deaths that are defined as reportable. I have concerns about both provisions and would like the Ministry's clarifications.

First, it is proposed by clause 2 that section 12 be amended to make the viewing of the body by the Coroner optional. That is, when the Coroner is conducting his preliminary investigations into a reportable death, he can decide not to view the body at all. As for the rationale for this change, it was stated in the MinLaw release that this would "expedite the process of the body to the family and will also save resources for the Police, the Health Sciences Authority and the Coroner".

Sir, it would thus appear that the move to make viewing of the body optional is motivated, at least in part, by resource constraints. However, we must ask, to what extent will this change result in any compromise of investigations of deaths? Despite what the Minister said earlier, it is not clear, to me at least, on what basis or the kinds of cases that are appropriate for a Coroner to decide that viewing of the body is not required. Could the Minister please elaborate further on how the Coroner would be supported to ensure that he or she does not inadvertently miss or overlook important evidence that further investigations into the death may be warranted?

The second change brought about by this Bill is to give the Minister for Law the power to issue a certificate for the release of the body of a deceased person at the request of a foreign state. Clause 3 of the Bill will introduce a new section 17A to the Act, to provide that if a foreign state has requested release of the body of a deceased in Singapore, then the Minister can consider issuing such a certificate in two situations. First, where the deceased had sustained an injury, contracted a disease or suffered a condition outside Singapore that appears to have caused the death; or, second, where the deceased person was or formerly was a head of state, head of government, government minister, government official or spouse or child of these persons or a diplomatic agent of a foreign state. If the Minister sees it fit to issue such a certificate for the release of the body of the deceased, then all investigations into the death must stop. A post-mortem should not be carried out and any Coroner's Inquiry into the death should cease.

According to the media release by MinLaw on 13 September, one of the reasons is that the foreign state may wish to conduct its own post-mortem examination on the citizen or resident who happened to die in Singapore after sustaining an injury, contracting a disease or suffering a condition outside of Singapore. I have two observations to make on this.

First, it should be noted that the proposed section 17A phrases the conditions of (a)(i) and (a)(ii) as alternatives.

So, for example, if the deceased happens to be an incumbent or a former head of government, it is not necessary that the deceased should have sustained an injury or illness outside of Singapore that appeared to lead to his death. The deceased's very status as a current or former head of government is enough to bring up such a case within the new regime even if the cause of death has no overseas nexus.

Secondly, there could well be circumstances where a foreign state could request the return of the body of a deceased government official because it does not want a post-mortem or inquiry to be done by an independent party. This could be motivated by a desire to preserve the dignity of a formal leader, but could also be motivated by less noble reasons, for example, to cover up a death deliberately caused to a political opponent. We cannot dismiss this possibility and it is certainly not far-fetched that political adversaries could be killed through poisoning or other nefarious means. The likelihood of the death of a foreign leader occurring in Singapore is not low as Singapore is a noted destination for medical treatment. It goes without saying that when a death occurs in Singapore, important evidence surrounding the death may well be located in Singapore. Furthermore, such evidence may not be immediately available after the death as the Police may need time to uncover it. Thus, there are risks associated with a quick handover of records and evidence to the foreign state.

Sir, I note that under the Bill, the Minister retains the discretion whether or not to issue the certificate to release the body to a requesting foreign state. He can order investigations in Singapore to continue if he believes it to be in the public interest to do so. He can also subsequently revoke an earlier certificate for release. These are important provisions.

As a member of the international community, we have a part to play to ensure that history is accurately recorded and that the world is not misled by fake news about the death of national leaders and officials. The Minister will need to be alive to this risk, even as he will likely face pressure from the requesting foreign state.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

6.49 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Coroners Act came into effect in January 2011. I would like to seek the Minister’s clarifications on two of the amendments which this amendment Bill seeks to introduce.

On the first amendment which is to give the Minister flexibility to issue a certificate for the release of a dead body to a foreign state in certain circumstances, I would like to ask the Minister what were the circumstances that prompted this particular amendment. Was there any recent incident where a foreign state objected to or requested for exemption from the Coroner holding an inquiry? What were the difficult circumstances in that case, if at all, or those cases which prompted the Government to wish to give the Government the discretion not to hold such an inquiry?

I would also like to ask the Minister, in making such an amendment, whether the Government has done a study of the likely reciprocity from other countries based on their current laws. Will there, for instance, be mutual reciprocity? I would also like to ask the Minister whether the proposed discretion is widely available in other countries.

I would like to ask what safeguards are in place to ensure that our Minister, in making such a decision, will not succumb to any strong pressure from a foreign state to release the body of a dead person when there are mysterious or suspicious circumstances leading to his or her death.

Finally, will the Minister’s rationalisation of whether or not it is in the public interest for the discretion to be exercised, be made publicly available?

Next, on the dispensing of the need for the Coroner to view the body for preliminary investigation, this Bill introduces a new section 12 such that the Coroner does not have to view the body when making this preliminary investigation.

According to MinLaw, there are two reasons for the suggested change: (a) the viewing of the body serves "to ensure that the deceased is correctly identified. However, there are already existing safeguards to ensure the correct identification of bodies", which the Minister has touched on today; and (b) this will expedite the process of releasing the body to the family, and will also save resources for the Police, the Health Sciences Authority and the Coroner.

In the debate to the Coroners’ Bill in 2010, the Senior Minister of State introducing the Bill, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, said that: "…this provision will enable the Coroner to harness technology in appropriate cases, where the Coroner may be indisposed to be physically present to view the body, without having to cause unnecessary delay to the progress of time-sensitive investigations. This will expedite the release of the body to the next-of-kin after the Coroner has viewed and identified it. But let me assure Dr Lam that the norm will still be the current practice of the Coroner going down physically, right to the mortuary every morning to view and identify the body, and that includes weekends and public holidays."

The Minister was replying to a Member Dr Lam Pin Min’s question and comment about whether letting the Coroner view and identify a body by video in lieu of viewing in-person, to decide whether an inquiry is needed, trivialises the investigative process.

Needless to say, viewing the body is an important step in determining whether a death happened due to natural causes or whether an inquiry into the cause of death is needed.

Comparing Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee’s remarks on the default practice of the Coroner going down physically to the mortuary to view and identify the body, to the present proposed amendments, there appears to be a significant mindset shift on this.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister with this amendment, whether there is an intention to stop the Coroner’s daily attendance at the mortuary as a default practice, if it is not already happening, and let some other means, as what the Minister has explained, like video link to take over as a daily default practice in place. If not, what is the expectation of the Government with respect to when the Coroner is expected to attend in person?

I would like to know whether the proposed change arises from a significant resource shortage for the Police, the Health Sciences Authority and the Coroner’s office. If so, will the Minister elaborate on this resource shortage?

If "saving resources for the Police, the Health Sciences Authority and the Coroner" was a key consideration, would ramping up on resourcing be a more robust solution than making this key step a discretionary one?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.53 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I support this Bill, which will allow for greater flexibility in the Coroner’s discharge of duties. This flexibility will save the valuable resources of the Coroner, Police, Health Sciences Authority and all other related parties.

That said, I have three quick points of clarification.

My first point is on the Coroner’s investigation process. Body viewing is one of the steps the Coroner must take in investigating and determining the cause and circumstances surrounding a reported death. Having a proper procedure in place is important because it provides reassurance to the deceased’s family and similarly protects the Coroner from any allegations of wrongdoing or negligence.

With the amendment to make such body viewing discretionary, can the Minister share what remaining mandatory requirements the Coroner has to fulfil in its preliminary investigation?

My second point is on the safeguards to ensure correct identification of bodies. I note that existing safeguards to ensure the correct identification will remain. As Minister has shared, these safeguards include the tagging of the body with the deceased’s particulars at the scene and at the mortuary, the Police signing off on a Body Identification Form and sending it to the Coroner.

Can the Minister share if additional steps will be taken to strengthen the existing safeguards to ensure correct identification notwithstanding the removal of the mandatory body viewing requirement?

My third point is on the revocation of certificates to release the bodies of deceased persons to foreign states. The new section 17A provides the Minister’s power to issue a Minister’s certificate to release the bodies of a deceased person to foreign states in certain cases. Under the new section 17A(4), the Minister also has the power to revoke any Minister’s certificate previously issued.

Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances would the Minister’s certificate be revoked? Is there a time limit in exercising the revocation?

If the certificate is revoked after the body has been buried, cremated, or transported out of the country, can the Minister share what methods and procedures are in place to ensure that the quality of the resumed investigation under the new section 17A(4)(a) will not be compromised?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.

6.56 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their quick, short and sharp speeches. I will try to make my answers equally short.

Mr Ng asked what were the mandatory requirements for the preliminary investigation. There are no mandatory steps in this. But it really depends on the particular circumstances of the death and the context in which it occurs, and whether or not there are particular areas of concern that the Coroner has, which will then drive the steps to be taken in the preliminary investigation.

Mr Ng, Ms Lim and Mr Tan asked about the current process, whether there are safeguards, whether we are doing this because there is a manpower issue, and it is driven entirely by this.

First of all, I will remind Members what I said at the outset, that we have been doing this for a couple of years now, since the Coroners Act came into force in 2010, using a variety of different steps, technology, video usage, RFID, QR coding. And I think I described the process in some detail earlier. We looked at that, we looked at the records, we looked at the reliability of that system and, as I said just now, we found that as far as we could tell, there were no misidentifications using this system. This then gave us enough confidence to propose this suggestion.

It is not to say that because of this that there will be a flood of non-inspections or non-viewing of the bodies as a result of this. I think it just gives the Coroner the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, assessing the probative value of each of the different sources of identification, making an overall assessment and deciding whether or not it is sufficiently safe not to actually view the body.

I do not think I will go into the specific steps again. I think Members can take reference from what I had said earlier.

Ms Lim had asked about the exemption, section 17A. Ms Lim, to paraphrase her, suggested that there might be circumstances where the request could be motivated by less noble reasons, nefarious reasons, I think, was the phrase that was used. I would like to assure Ms Lim that if such a situation arises, then it would not, obviously, be in the public interest for us to accede to that request. If there are suspicious circumstances surrounding a head of state's or a foreign government minister's death in Singapore, then, obviously, it is not in our country's interest to give up on the investigation and to let the foreign state take over the investigations and, in fact, to completely remove the body from Singapore altogether. So, I think that she should be reasonably assuaged.

On the suggestion that there might be a quick handover, there are steps in section 17A(2) which sets out the different checks that the Minister will have regard to prior to issuing the certificate and this includes looking at information from a forensic pathologist, even directing the forensic pathologist to investigate the apparent cause, to have some degree of satisfaction, and also the Minister may direct the Police to provide any further assistance that a pathologist might require.

So, all of these steps give us the assurance that the death has not occurred in nefarious or unusual circumstances, and there is enough, sufficient public interest for us to accede to the request.

Mr Tan asked about the rationale of section 17A. The point is this. There are circumstances where a foreign state may have a legitimate interest in the death and request that Singapore does not conduct our post-mortem examination. For example, the foreign state may wish to maintain the integrity of the body – I think Ms Lim mentioned "preserve the dignity" – so that it may conduct its own post-mortem examination on its resident or citizen.

On other occasions, the death may have taken place in Singapore, but the cause of death is really only tangentially connected to Singapore and is instead more closely connected with events and circumstances overseas.

Mr Tan asked whether it is motivated by any particular occasion. It is really a question of comity, as far as we can to try and accommodate in appropriate situations. The point here is, at this point in time, the Act does not allow any leeway, whatsoever. What these amendments do is not to say that in all such requests they will be granted but it creates the possibility of acceding to these requests when they come in.

Mr Pillai asked about the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or CLTPA. I understand where Mr Pillai is coming from, when he says that why is there no similar requirement for the Public Prosecutor (PP)'s consent in this case.

Well, first of all, the PP's views, whether or not they are going to be conducting further investigations, its sense of whether there is any impropriety which merits further review or investigation, will all be taken into account.

It is not the same framework as the CLTPA here because in that situation, we are dealing with consent to detain a person. Here, it is in relation to a request by a foreign party to not conduct a post-mortem here and to release the body to a foreign state. And, of course, the whole gamut of matters that surround the public interest criteria, including whether or not the PP's view is that there should be a further investigation, will be taken into account.

I would add that the Minister is very unlikely to reach a conclusion that it is in our public interest, where circumstances surrounding the death is either unknown, unclear or it is not apparently the reason, as set out, through a disease or manifest cause and where there might be a suspicion of foul play, then in those situations, in assessing public interest, the Minister will obviously have to consider the PP's position as far as these considerations are concerned.

Mr Ng asked for a clarification of the circumstances in which the Minister's certificate might be revoked. When deciding whether to issue the certificate in the first place, in other words, before we have to get into a situation where we have to decide what happens when we revoke it, the question as to what is public interest, whether it is appropriate in this case, whether we should be granting the certificate, will be judiciously considered. This minimises the possibility of having to subsequently reconsider similar circumstances, as far as possible.

Obviously, there could be a change in circumstances. There could be a scenario where the foreign state, for example, withdraws the request for the certificate or that there is now some other material that is known now, that was not available at that point in time. Obviously, these are matters which might arise.

There is no time limit prescribed for the revocation. But, obviously, the Minister will have to consider the time elapsed that has gone by, the prejudice, if any, that may have been incurred as a result of the body's movement and whether it is practical in the first place, if the body had already gone back, had undertaken a foreign post-mortem examination and it is not feasible to have that review done in Singapore thereafter.

So, all of these factors will be taken into account, but for flexibility purposes, there is not a prescribed timeframe in the framework of this Bill for the revocation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I have addressed all of the questions raised by Members. I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.