Criminal Law Reform Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

We inherited the Penal Code from the British. It is nearly 150 years old. It is an important part of Singapore’s criminal law. The last time the Penal Code was reviewed end-to-end was in 2007. Our world and society have changed. The nature and complexity of crime have also changed, and it is timely that we update the Penal Code to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness.

The Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC) comprised lawyers, academics, judges and Ministry officials. The committee took two years to complete this extensive review. It submitted a report of nearly 500 pages and 169 recommendations on 31 August 2018. We considered the proposals by the PCRC and sought feedback from a wide range of stakeholders and also the general public. More than 700 stakeholders from the social, religious, financial, legal and education sectors were engaged in various dialogue sessions. We received written feedback from various individuals and organisations. We have also made the Bill available to Members of this House and to the public for the last three months. We are heartened by the general support for the proposals.

My speech today will cover four key areas: updating current sexual offences; updating the Penal Code's definitions and removing outmoded offences; dealing with emerging crime trends; and updating the sentencing framework. Minister Shanmugam will cover the Government's views on two key areas: enhancement of protection for vulnerable victims and reviewing sexual offences, specifically, offences against minors and new sexual offences.

On updating current sexual offences, first, let me talk about the offence of rape. The Bill will expand the definition of rape to include penile penetration of the anus and mouth. Currently, the offence of rape covers only penile penetration of the vagina. We take the view that the label of "rape" is appropriate for non-consensual acts involving penile penetration of the anus and mouth. This reflects the high degree of violation and the physical and health risks involved. With this Bill, both men and women can be victims of rape. Clause 110 gives effect to this.

Second, the Bill further clarifies the law on "consent" in the context of sexual offences. Clause 121 sets out three misconceptions of fact that would vitiate consent: sexual nature of the act; sexual purpose of the act; and identity of the perpetrator doing the act. We decided not have a positive statutory definition of consent. Section 90 of the Penal Code currently sets out the situations where consent is negated. There is a good body of case law on this matter.

Turning to the second key area in the Penal Code review, the updating of the Code to reflect shifting societal values.

The Bill will criminalise marital rape without exception. Currently, marital immunity for rape is only removed in certain circumstances, where there has been a breakdown in the marriage. Sexual relations in a marriage and indeed in any relationship, should be based on mutual consent.

Sexual assault is violence, and violence in any context is wrong. This is the basis on which we have repealed marital immunity. Clauses 110 and 112 of the Bill deal with this. There have been concerns raised that the complete repeal of marital immunity for rape could lead to an abuse of the legal process, due to an increase in unmeritorious allegations of rape by vindictive spouses.

I want to assure the House that all allegations of rape will be held to the same high standard of evidential rigour. There is a separate proposal which goes some way to deal with this concern. We have doubled the maximum punishment for section 182 of the Penal Code – situations where persons give false information to a public servant – from one to two years' imprisonment. In other words, persons who knowingly make false reports will be dealt with firmly by the law. Clause 54 gives effect to this.

The Bill will decriminalise attempted suicide. This proposal received wide public support, including from organisations which work directly with persons who attempt suicides, such as Samaritans of Singapore. The criminal justice system is not the best way to deal with persons who are so distressed that they choose to end their own lives.

In fact, the threat of prosecution, and the labelling of persons who attempt suicide as "offenders" may worsen their emotional state and the stigma they face. This view was shared by the PCRC and many others during the public consultation process. There were some concerns that the decriminalisation of attempted suicide would reduce the deterrent effect, and cause an increased number of suicides. However, bear in mind that persons who attempt suicide typically are so distressed that the deterrent effect of criminalisation is very low. The present situation is that hardly anyone is prosecuted and punished for this offence in the first place.

There were also concerns that the decriminalisation of attempted suicide will send a signal that the Government has shifted its position on the sanctity of life. I assure you that this is not the case. Every effort will still be made to prevent suicides. The Bill amends other laws to ensure that the Police will still be able to intervene in suicide situations. Members of the public will still be able to call for emergency assistance in cases where a person is attempting suicide.

The offence of abetment of attempted suicide will be retained. This will include physician-assisted suicides. Under this Bill, the maximum imprisonment term for abetment of attempted suicide will be enhanced significantly from one year to 10 years. Where the abetment of attempted suicide is of a minor or a person who lacks mental capacity, higher maximum punishments will apply – 15 years' imprisonment. If hurt is caused to the minor or the person who lacks mental capacity in the course of the abetment, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years. Clauses 84, 85, 89, 180 and 183 give effect to this.

The Bill codifies the definitions of fault elements such as intention, knowledge and dishonesty. These definitions crystallise and clarify the existing case law. We wanted to make the law clearer since most of these definitions apply to offences outside the Penal Code as well. Clauses 7 and 8 deal with these.

The Bill clarifies defences. First, the law on mistake. The amendments in clauses 21 and 22 will not change the existing law. There are two types of mistake – mistake of fact and mistake of law. First, it will continue to be the case that ignorance of law and mistake of law will not be a defence. Second, to be clear, we have clarified expressly, in clauses 110 and 111, the current position at law on the defence of mistake as to consent for the offences of rape and sexual assault by penetration.

Where the accused person proves that he made a mistake in good faith such that he believed that the act of penetration was done with consent, he will not be liable for the offence of rape or sexual assault by penetration. In other words, the amendments in clauses 110 and 111 will make clear the burden of proof remains on the accused person to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was mistaken in good faith that there was consent.

The amendments will not affect other presumptions which exist in law today, such as those in the Misuse of Drugs Act.

We will address an anomaly in the defence of intoxication in section 86. This was pointed out by the High Court in Juma'at bin Samad v PP. With the amendment, intoxication must be taken into account in determining the accused person's "knowledge" or "belief", in addition to "intention".

I wish to make clear that all other aspects of the law on intoxication in Juma'at are preserved. The Explanatory Statement is not clear in this regard and this speech clarifies the intent. This includes the requirement for the accused person to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was so intoxicated that he did not form the requisite fault element for the offence. Clause 29 gives effect to this.

We will increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility, known as the MACR, from seven to 10 years old. Children who are below the MACR, and those above the MACR but below 12 years of age, who are unable to understand the nature and consequences of their conduct, cannot be held criminally responsible for any act or omission which would otherwise be an offence. The current MACR is seven years old and this is a colonial inheritance, since 1872.

We need to strike a balance between protection of the public and fairness to young children who may not be able to understand the consequences of their action.

There is no international consensus on the appropriate MACR. The MACR of seven years old is on the lower end of the spectrum.

We studied this very carefully. In Singapore, criminal activity among children below the age of 10 is very low. We see increased criminal activity from the age of 10 onwards, and most juveniles commit property offences. On balance, we think an MACR of 10 years old would be more appropriate in our context. Children below 10 years old, and those between 10 and 12 years old who are not mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of their conduct, will not be convicted.

But this does not mean that we do nothing. We are looking to develop a framework to allow us to intervene in cases of such young children. The raising of the MACR will take effect when the framework for rehabilitation of these young children has been finalised. Clauses 25 and 26 give effect to this.

I will now move on to the third key area on how the Penal Code will be amended to deal with emerging crime trends, especially in the area of white-collar offences.

Offences can be committed across national borders, with the constituent elements of offences committed in different countries. Indeed, many white-collar offences have multiple physical elements which can take place in different countries. It is currently not clear whether Singapore courts will have jurisdiction when some elements take place in Singapore, and others outside of Singapore. A new Schedule will be inserted into the Penal Code. Singapore Courts will have jurisdiction over offences in this Schedule, where any relevant act of the offence occurs in Singapore. Clauses 2 and 168 give effect to this.

The Bill introduces the new offence of fraud. To understand the need for fraud offences, we need to look at the current offence of cheating. The offence relies on there being a victim that relied on the deception by the offender. The deception had to induce the victim to do something.

Take for instance the LIBOR-fixing scandal in the UK. It would be very difficult to show that the victims relied upon the fraudulent representations of the bank employees who manipulated LIBOR. Calculations for LIBOR are complicated, and may not be understood by these victims. Yet, the LIBOR-fixing scandal is egregious, with far-reaching consequences on financial markets and products. We must be able to take action against such dishonest behaviour.

The new offence of Fraud is intended to deal with novel and complex scheme which the current offence of cheating may not cover. It focuses on the deceitful intent of the offender and not the effect on the alleged victim. Trivial lies will not be caught. The cheating offence will continue to be used where the elements of the offence are satisfied.

Two variants of fraud will be introduced. The first, fraud directly in connection with written or oral contracts for goods and services, and the second, other types of fraud. The second category of other types of fraud will come into force first, with the rest of the Penal Code amendments. For fraud in connection with contracts for goods and services, we are working on the development of a mechanism, which allows private persons to obtain recourse for more common cases involving smaller losses.

This mechanism may involve private prosecutions, civil claims or some other avenues. The new fraud offence has been adapted from the UK's Fraud Act. Clauses 138 and 139 give effect to this.

The experience of the UK in the implementation of the fraud offence has been positive. It has enabled the UK government to respond to technologically enabled and complex forms of fraud.

One point on online scams. While these would fall within the definition of fraud, most of these offences are committed by perpetrators overseas. For such cases, prevention is better than cure. While the Police will continue to clamp down on scam activities and work actively with our foreign counterparts, it is a fact that it is challenging to bring these foreign perpetrators to task.

Finally, I will touch on the fourth area, which is updating the sentencing framework. We have made some amendments to the sentencing framework to ensure that the sentences prescribed are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Members of this House will be familiar with mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). MMS refers to a sentence where the law mandates that a judge must impose a minimum jail term or another sentence such as caning for a particular offence.

MMS has served us well. It enhances deterrence for serious offences by imposing certain, predictable sentences on offenders. We recognise that society has become safer, less violent, and more mature. It is therefore timely to review all the offences which attract MMS today. We have decided to retain MMS for offences in the Penal Code, Misuse of Drugs Act and illegal moneylending offences. MMS will also be retained for offences which attract a mandatory sentence of caning. These offences are serious, and generally involve elements of physical confrontation and violence.

Presumptive minimum sentences will be introduced for the remaining eight offences as set out in the Bill. Only first-time offenders will qualify for presumptive minimum sentences. For these offenders, the Court may sentence them to a punishment which is less than MMS in exceptional circumstances. We have provided guidance in the law on exceptional circumstances.

Where the accused person is a first-time offender, pleaded guilty and where he was of previous good character – the mere presence of all or any of these factors will not be sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances. The Court will determine what exceptional circumstances are.

Currently, courts can already exercise judicial mercy in very rare cases where humanitarian considerations arise. This gives us an idea of the degree of exceptionality that is required. The introduction of presumptive minimum sentences is not a softening of the Government's stance against such crimes. Because exceptional circumstances must be shown, we anticipate that the majority of offenders who commit these offences will still face the prescribed minimum sentence.

Almost all the provisions will come into force early next year in 2020. In this major review of the Penal Code, we have clarified existing concepts and amended our laws to reflect prevailing norms and better respond to our changing environment. Minister Shanmugam will provide the Government's views on the changes to two key areas: sexual offences and enhancing protection of the most vulnerable amongst us. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.15 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has given the Government's view on some of the key proposed amendments. I intend to set out the Government’s position on two major areas of the law which we are amending. One, better protection of vulnerable victims; and second, dealing with sexual offences. We are setting out new offences and enhancing penalties where minors are involved. Some additional conduct of a sexual nature will be specifically criminalised.

First, protection for vulnerable victims. We want to provide stronger protection for those who cannot protect themselves. First, we will enhance maximum punishment for offences committed against such victims. Second, we will introduce new offences where such victims are abused. The first category of vulnerable victims are children below 14 years old; second, vulnerable persons due to mental or physical disabilities; and third, domestic workers.

Penalties for all offences in the Penal Code committed against these vulnerable victims will be enhanced, up to twice the maximum penalties prescribed for these offences.

Members of this House will remember the case of Annie Ee. Annie had low IQ. She lived with her so-called close friends. They abused her by beating her daily; they made her do all the household chores and they kept her salary. Annie was not capable of protecting herself. She suffered for eight months and then she died.

With the new amendments, if a person like Annie Ee is assessed to be substantially unable to protect herself, then her abusers will be liable to up to twice the maximum punishment. They will be charged for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt; so up to 20 years' imprisonment. This is in clause 17 of the Bill.

All Penal Code offences committed against such vulnerable victims will be made arrestable, regardless of whether the underlying offence is itself arrestable. That will allow Police to intervene quickly.

Penalties will also be enhanced for specific offences committed against persons who are in an intimate or close relationship with the offender, even if they are not married. PAVE is a VWO which works closely with a variety of other agencies, including the Government. They told me about this case, which was one of the reasons why I decided we ought to change the law here. They helped a lady by the name of Cindy. Cindy had suffered horrific abuse from her live-in partner. She was found by the Police in the year 2000, almost completely blind, with slash wounds all over her body and with broken bones. She had suffered horrific abuse over the eight years. Quite unspeakable. The two young children she had with the abuser witnessed all of this abuse, which took place almost daily.

In many serious domestic abuse cases, the abuser exploits the trust of the victim to abuse them. The victims often find it difficult to leave such partners due to the emotional and psychological manipulation which is frequently found in such relationships.

If the offender commits specific offences like rape, wrongful confinement, causing hurt, against intimate partners or those in close relationship, the offender will be subject to twice the maximum penalties that are normally prescribed for such offences. These amendments will mean that such perpetrators who abuse victims, where the victims trust and depend on them, the abusers will face much more severe punishments.

These amendments must be read or looked at together with the proposed amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), which will be coming up for Second Reading tomorrow. It means that such intimate partners can get Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) on an expedited basis and that perpetrators will get more severe penalties. Previously, only married partners can apply for PPO under the Woman's Charter.

Now, under proposed amendments to POHA, the timelines for getting a PPO will be comparable to that under the Women's Charter. So intimate partners, usually women, who are in a relationship but not married, who fear violence. This is a significant step to giving them greater protection. Again, based on Parliamentary rules, I cannot go too much into detail on POHA, but my intention is that, it must be fast, it must be quick, and they must be able to get remedies. My colleague, Edwin Tong, will take Parliament through POHA tomorrow.

In the Penal Code, new offences in respect of abuse of vulnerable victims which lead to death or other forms of grievous hurt will also be introduced. But going back to intimate partners, therefore, on the one side, the penalties to be enhanced; and on the other side, easier access to Personal Protection Orders. Of course, there is the underlying psychological problem, that if the woman does not want to leave and continues to suffer the abuse, then our agencies or the VWOs will have to try to find a way of identifying these woman – usually women – and then, encourage them to take the steps.

Now, I am moving on to the abuse leading to death of vulnerable victims. New offences are being introduced, where there is serious abuse of vulnerable victims. I remind Members of another case, Daniel Nasser, two years old. He was abused by his mother and her live-in boyfriend over a period of at least five weeks. They kicked and slapped him almost every day. They stomped on his chest. The autopsy found 31 external injuries on Daniel. The court said the couple had inflicted harm "in a ruthless and unrelenting manner".

In such serious cases of abuse which leads to the death of the vulnerable victim, Members will find it odd, but lawyers will know, it is not easy to convict the offenders of murder. The reason is that it is difficult to show that they had the requisite mens rea, that is, the mental elements that were present to meet the requirements for the conviction for murder. I think we have to take a strong stance against such abuse. I refer to clauses 83, 104 and 171.

The first two offences – "causing death by sustained abuse" and "failure to protect" – will cover persons who owe these victims a duty of care. Who are such persons? Persons who have custody, care, or charge of the victims. They have a responsibility to protect those under their care from harm. Members can refer to clause 83.

The third new offence is "causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable victim". Victims, as I described earlier, children, domestic workers and other vulnerable persons.

The offence deals with situations where two or more persons were in a position to cause the death of the victim but both deny they were the ones who caused the ill-treatment. In such cases, it is very difficult to prove in Court, who committed the abuse and who permitted the abuse. Currently, when there is this sort of ambiguity, both could get acquitted, while there is a dead child. This is not right, I think.

Deaths resulting from natural causes or accidents will not be covered. But, otherwise, if you stood by and you allowed a child to be abused in this way, you can be charged.

The United Kingdom and Australia have similar offences. A case from the UK is illustrative of the kind of situation we are thinking about. Let me refer to R v. Ikram from the United Kingdom, where a 16-month-old (or a year and four months) boy died. He was living with his father and his father’s female partner. The boy suffered 21 different injuries within 48 hours before his death, including a fatal fracture to the left femur. It occurred within 12 hours prior to his death. It was established that only the father and his partner were present during the period when the fatal injury was inflicted. The father had been absent for around two hours. Both defendants were charged for murder and both claimed they did not to know how the injuries were sustained. In Singapore, under our proposed amendments, the father and partner both can be charged for causing or allowing a young child's death. So, you can look at clauses 83, 104 and 171.

There have been some feedback and concerns that persons who are themselves victims of abuse could nevertheless be held liable for their inaction by "failing to protect" a vulnerable victim or "causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable victim". For example, a husband violently abuses his wife and his children. The concern is that the abused wife may herself be found liable under this offence if she did not intervene to prevent her husband from abusing the children. This is even though she may not have really been in a position to intervene. That should not be the case. The clauses in the Bill require the court to consider past or present experiences of those of the accused persons of abuse as well. The Court needs to determine the steps the accused person could have been reasonably expected to have taken to prevent the abuse of the vulnerable victim.

Under the amendments, Daniel Nasser's abusers, the very people who were supposed to protect him, could be liable for the new offence of causing death by sustained abuse, and causing or allowing Daniel’s death.

Now, I will turn to the area of sexual offences. There are amendments to better protect minors and there are amendments creating new categories of sexual offences.

First, minors. Members of this House may remember the case of Joshua Robinson. He was 39 years old, he met two 15-year-old girls on social networking sites. He pressured them to send him nude pictures of themselves and to meet up to have sex with him. Currently – and some Members might find this surprising when they think about it – asking for and receiving nude images by consent, from a 15-year-old, is not an offence today.

He also filmed their sexual encounters. When his house was raided, they found obscene films including more than 300 films of child pornography.

After he was arrested and released on bail, when he was on bail, Joshua Robinson showed a six-year-old girl explicit videos of his girlfriend performing a sexual act on him. At present, that is not a separate category of offence. It will have to come within the rubric of showing an obscene film. But I think Members will agree that we should criminalise it separately and clearly, rather than treating it as just showing an obscene film. I think the action and acts are heinous in themselves, beyond the showing of the film.

Joshua Robinson was eventually sentenced to imprisonment for having sex with minors because both girls were under 16, making and possessing obscene films, and showing an obscene film to a six-year-old girl. I think Members will agree that getting the two 15-year-old girls to send nude photos should itself be criminalised, and showing an obscene film to a six-year-old should be treated with more severity by a separate category of offence.

So, I said at that time that we needed to look at criminalising some parts of his conduct, which were not caught at that time, and increasing the penalties as well, to ensure that people like Joshua Robinson will be dealt with more severely through higher penalties.

So, the new offences, under the rubric of "exploitative sexual activity with minors" will deal with sexual predators who exploit young people.

The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years old, but there are situations where slightly older minors, those between 16 and 18 years old, may be exploited for sexual gratification by persons who are in relationships of trust with the minor.

In such cases, the young person's consent, and we are talking about 16 to 18 years; that young person's consent, is, in my view, compromised.

We are therefore introducing offences involving sexual exploitation of minors of age 16 or above but below 18 where sexual penetration is involved, where sexual grooming is involved, and where sexual communications are involved.

For sexual exploitation offences by persons in relationships of trust with minors who are below 16 years of age – we will enhance the existing penalties, and we will peg them to those for non-consensual sexual penetration.

There are two parts to this definition of "exploitation".

First, in considering whether the accused is in a relationship that is exploitative of the victim, the Court will be required to consider the age of the minor – the younger the person (the victim), the more susceptible to influence he or she will be.

Second, the difference in age between the accused and the minor. A large age difference may result in the victim viewing the accused as an authority figure, allowing the accused to exert significant influence over the victim.

Third, the nature of the relationship. If the accused initiates sexual communication or activity, it is likely that the intention of the accused, particularly if it is done very early in the relationship, was to make use of the power imbalance in the relationship to exploit the victim for his sexual gratification.

Fourth, the degree of control or influence exercised by the accused over the minor. The greater the influence by the accused over the minor, the more the minor's will may be considered to be compromised.

The use of violence or coercion by the accused will be considered to be amongst the indicators of control or domination over the victim.

So, in short, a key factor in determining "exploitation" is the presence of a power imbalance between the accused person and the minor.

There are other jurisdictions which take a different approach. For example, the United Kingdom and some states in Australia have an exhaustive list of relationships – sexual activity between adults and minors in such relationships is prohibited.

We have adapted this as the second part of the definition of "exploitation".

A list of specified relationships has been included in the law. Where these relationships exist between the accused and the minor, there will be a rebuttable presumption that an exploitative relationship exists.

What are these relationships? They involve an adult who is in a position of responsibility, authority or influence over the minor. It will include teacher-student; doctor-patient; and parent-child.

Where the relationship between the accused person and the minor is not in this list, the Court can still find that a relationship was exploitative based on its assessment by reference to the first part of the definition. So, if you look at clauses 113 and 121, those are set out.

I will now turn to predatory conduct against minors. The amendments and new offences take into account developments in technology which have enabled predators to increase their number of victims and the speed at which they can groom minors.

We are seeking to lower the threshold for the current offence of sexual grooming. We are reducing the required instances of prior conduct from two to one, and we will lower the age floor of the offender from 21 to 18 – clauses 116 and 117.

New offences will be introduced: sexual communication with minors – I spoke about this earlier – and showing a minor a sexual image, I spoke about this earlier. Also, sexual activity in the presence of a minor – clause 117.

So, this will allow us to criminalise predatory behaviour like Joshua Robinson's, including asking minors to send him nude images.

There will be, of course, other types of conduct, like sexual experimentation amongst young persons. It is not the intent of these new offences to target these groups of persons. The intent is to prevent predatory conduct.

The AGC will, of course, have to exercise prosecutorial discretion in determining whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. When it is between boyfriend and girlfriend, and they are of a certain age, very young, and it is not exploitative, it should not come within these provisions.

Covering the spectrum of predatory behaviour allows us to intervene early to ensure that our children are protected before the offender has time to meet them and prepare them, and commit additional, more serious sexual offences that could cause, of course, greater physical and psychological harm.

Next, child abuse material. I said in this House last year that we were looking into drafting specific laws against child abuse material.

Apart from sexual abuse, some children are physically abused; they are tortured as well. Terrible harm is caused to these children who are used in the production of such material. We must do what we can to protect them. This does not happen much in Singapore, but we are going to make this extra-territorial in some ways.

We have criminalised the spectrum of offences to deal with every person involved, from consumers to the producers of such material. So, we will also cover realistic depictions of children, meaning depictions which so closely resemble that of actual children, such that if an ordinary person looks at the depiction, they cannot tell whether this is real or a depiction.

Inclusion of these realistic depictions of children will prevent an accused person from arguing that a depiction is computer-generated when in fact it involved an actual child.

The offences of using or procuring a child for child abuse material, and production of child abuse material – these will be made extra-territorial.

The offences will cover Singaporeans and PRs who commit such offences overseas. Of course, it will cover them if they do it here as well. Any person who is in Singapore and commits these offences against a child overseas; and any person who is overseas and commits these offences against a child in Singapore – that is in clause 120.

Next, child abuse material which depicts fictional children. This is dealt with under section 292 of the Penal Code. The offence criminalises sale, distribution, exhibition, production of obscene material. Possession of such material is not criminalised under this provision.

We want to enhance punishments under section 292 when the obscene object depicts minors below 16 years old. The maximum punishments is sought to be increased from three months to two years of imprisonment.

And a new offence criminalising possession, distribution, importation, production of child sex-dolls will also be introduced. These refer to anatomically accurate dolls or robots with features which resemble a minor below a 16-year-old. These dolls are produced and used overseas. We are prohibiting them because of the concern that they may reinforce tendencies which can then develop into actual harmful acts towards children.

Next, technology has facilitated the commission of sexual offences such as voyeurism, "cyber-flashing", distribution of intimate images (often referred to as "revenge pornography"). And there has been an increase in such cases. These offences are currently criminalised under the Films Act and Penal Code.

We want to create specific offences in the Penal Code to provide proper framing for such offences and adequate punishments.

Voyeurism involves observation or recording of someone doing a private act without the person's consent. Some of the more commonly known forms of voyeurism include "up-skirting" and "down-blousing". Recently, there has been spotlight on these offences because of the incident in NUS, involving Mr Nicholas Lim. These offences are currently dealt with under "Insult of Modesty" in the Penal Code and Films Act.

The current laws, in my view, do not adequately address the range of offences involving voyeuristic recordings and the distribution of such material on the Internet. So, we propose to introduce specific offences involving "voyeurism" which will define the offending behaviour and provide for adequate punishments.

The proposals, Members know, as I said earlier this afternoon, well pre-date the incident involving Mr Lim. In fact, the Bill was tabled in Parliament before that incident became public. It was before the incident took place as well, in terms of working on it and drafting.

We have also introduced a presumption. Where the accused person has made a recording of another person doing a private act, or of their private parts, it will be presumed that the person being recorded or observed did not consent to the observation or recording.

Sometimes, there are evidential challenges because you can find the images, but you cannot identify who the person is. This will get over the legal burden and the presumption will be that there was no consent. The accused can then say why there was consent.

The new offences will criminalise "Peeping Tom" behaviour, making of voyeuristic recordings, distribution, possession of, or gaining access to such recordings.

Also, modifying any part of a building's structure to make voyeuristic recordings will also be criminalised specifically. This was recently reported in the international media as being a very serious issue in South Korea.

The proposed maximum imprisonment terms for the observance, possession and making of such "voyeuristic recordings" is now going to be two years if the Bill gets passed. That is double the current maximum one-year punishment for the offence of insulting modesty under section 509.

There is, I think, a clear need to deter the proliferation of voyeuristic recordings. So, distribution of voyeuristic recordings will attract a higher punishment – a maximum imprisonment term of five years if you go around distributing these. The Court may also impose a fine and caning for these offences. Members may refer to clause 120.

We have also introduced a new offence to criminalise sexual exposure which is commonly known as "flashing". There has been prevalence of this – persons intentionally send unsolicited pictures of their genitalia over social media or via messaging platforms. That will be criminalised. Penalties for this offence will be enhanced where the victim is below 14 years old.

Distribution or threat to distribute intimate images – we will introduce a new offence for distribution, threat to distribute, colloquially known as "revenge porn". Intimate images could become widely shared on platforms, and it may be impossible to completely remove them, and they have the potential to cause great harm to the victim.

The offence will exclude images such as caricatures or cartoons of a person performing a sexual act. So, a lewd caricature of a person may amount to harassment, but not something that could be mistaken as an "intimate image" of the person depicted. The maximum penalty for this offence would be imprisonment of up to five years, with the option of fine and caning. Where the offence is committed against a person below 14 years old, imprisonment will be made mandatory.

The new offence will also cover cases where a person unlawfully accesses databases or recordings that contain intimate images. That is also in clause 120.

We are also introducing a new offence: procurement of sexual activity by deception relating to two types of conduct. First, the use of sexually protective measures; and second, the presence or absence of sexually transmitted diseases. In some countries, cases have emerged of men agreeing to use a condom but secretly removing it before or during sex. It is known as "stealthing". In these cases, the quality of the consent provided by the victim would be compromised by the deception. We have identified, and also if men, usually men, mislead their partner on their sexually transmitted diseases, that is also covered. We have identified these two types of deception because they carry serious risks to the victim and represent a greater violation of the victims’ sexual autonomy. You can refer to clause 119. We will continue to assess whether there is a need to expand this offence to cover other circumstances in the future relating to consent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these enhanced penalties and new offences created will help to better protect vulnerable victims, victims of sexual crimes and reflect our commitment to protect such persons. The amendments we are making today strengthen our laws. They will help ensure that Singapore continues to be a safe home for our people, particularly women, children, and vulnerable persons.

3.51 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill has the monumental task of reforming Singapore’s criminal law. It is the result of an immense effort by the many stakeholders – MinLaw, MHA, the AGC, Law Society, the Criminal Bar and members of public who have provided the valuable feedback. The product is a formidable piece of legislation.

Sir, today, I would like to discuss six broad themes underlying the amendments and the discussions leading up to the presentation of this Bill in Parliament.

The first theme is the protection of victims in vulnerable positions. In particular, vulnerable victims who are unable to defend themselves, victims of abuse within a marriage and minors who have been victimised by abusive or lewd acts.

Clause 83 introduces offences which improve the law's capability to address situations where sustained abuse and neglect results in the unfortunate death of a vulnerable victim. Some of us remember the case of Annie Ee. Annie was a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities. She was physically and psychologically abused by her flatmates for eight months until she died with severe injuries. This law will ensure the perpetrators in a case like Annie Ee's will be dealt with accurately and effectively – matching culpability with an appropriate sentence.

Another case. In 2015, the case of Joshua Robinson surfaced. He was found to have in his possession 5,902 obscene films, 321 of them containing child pornography, featuring children as young as two years old. Robinson had even shown a six-year-old girl an obscene video while her father was training at a gym. Many Singaporeans raised concerns that the sentence of four years' imprisonment was inadequate. Clause 117 of the Bill addresses that. That clause introduces the offence of sexual activity or image in the presence of a minor below 16 years of age. This is relevant to the proposed section 376ED – it should be supported.

During the debate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill in 2007, Ms Ellen Lee raised the point that the exceptions to marital rape immunity are inadequate to address serious abuse in marriage. In particular, Ms Lee cited the case of PP against N where the marital relationship was already highly strained and the husband forcefully dragged her back to their matrimonial home, tied her hands, gagged her and "raped" her.

The changes to section 375(4) in clause 110(b) address that and puts into clear focus the victim’s interest. This is a bold move and should be supported. I am also glad that Ms Lee’s conscientious voice in 2007 has made an impact in the changes we are discussing today.

Many countries talk about the rights of the accused. Yes, that is important, but a good justice system is also victim-focused.

Sir, onto another topic within the first theme. Singapore-hosted webpages saw an exponential increase in child pornography content. In 2015, there were 10. But in 2016, there were 211. In the first 10 months of 2017, this number almost doubled to 412. The amendments to this Bill improve our law’s capability to deter such lewd content and punish the purveyors of it. We must protect our children. They are innocent and must be shielded from depraved and corrupt humans who seek offensive pleasure from such lewd acts. Hence, the proposed sections 377BG to 377BK, which punish purveyors of child pornography or child abuse content are important and timely.

Sir, I move on to the second theme, that is, to ensure culpability even where the criminal acts are committed overseas. One key way is to tackle crimes committed through the Internet. The proposed section 4B(1)(c) does so by specifying that certain offences committed outside Singapore but which affect Singapore are punishable as though the act had been carried out in Singapore. This is especially useful for financial crimes which can be committed remotely, with no respect for territorial boundaries. This ensures that the arm of Singapore's law can reach overseas actors who create harm in Singapore. This is key for a highly connected hub such as Singapore. It is an amendment that is needed and welcomed.

Sir, I move on to the third theme. The new presumptive minimum sentence is another important feature of this Bill. The proposed section 303A of the Criminal Procedure Code in clause 169 introduces more flexibility in sentencing by allowing the court to impose a sentence less than the presumptive minimum sentence if exceptional circumstances made it unjust to impose a first-time offender with the presumptive minimum sentence.

At this stage, I should declare that I am a lawyer in private practice and sometimes act as Defence Counsel in criminal cases. From my experience, it is good to give our Judges the discretion to impose accurate sentences. This may involve, at times, lighter sentences where there are strong mitigating factors which put the offenders’ acts in perspective. Allowing a judge to mete out a lower sentence – even lower than the presumptive minimum – could prove very useful where an offender is quite clearly on the lower spectrum of the culpability scale. It makes for more accurate justice. However, I do have a clarification to ask.

In the new subsection 4, it says that "in any written law, unless the context requires otherwise, a reference to a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment shall include a reference to a presumptive minimum sentence." Could the Minister elaborate on whether such a rationale applies to all existing regulatory and criminal laws or whether it is restricted to only the laws contained in the Penal Code? For example, how would subsection 4 apply to the Misuse of Drugs Act which already has a carefully calibrated deterrent-rehabilitation regime through the availability of the Drug Rehabilitation Centre at one extreme and the Long Term Imprisonments 1 and 2 options at the other extreme?

In short, Sir, presumptive minimum sentences will have the advantage of creating some broad consistency in sentencing across courtrooms and across cases, but allows much needed flexibility where the merits of the case justify a lower sentence. Such flexibility allows for more accurate justice.

Sir, I move to my fourth theme. While it is good and necessary to carry out an extensive review of our criminal laws every 12 years or so, would MHA and MinLaw consider creating a set of legal tools which could deal with morphing criminal threats of the future? In a world where technology progresses so rapidly, the potential criminal activities and their modus operandi may be morphing so quickly that even though we have a robust new criminal law framework now, the law may still not be wide enough to address criminal methodologies of the future.

Therefore, would MHA and MinLaw consider the suggestion to introduce a Schedule or the possibility for subsidiary legislation through which the Minister can respond quickly to the morphing criminal phenomenon without needing to come to Parliament. For example, in the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Minister does not need to come to Parliament to update the list of drugs, especially new psychoactive drugs. In this way, the law addressing the harms of drugs is flexible, versatile and able to respond quickly to the threat.

An example of what could be done for a Penal Code provision is by introducing a Schedule for section 409 of the Penal Code. It was held by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the 2018 case of Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung, Kong Hee & Others that the provision contained in section 409 on criminal breach of trust by an agent does not cover key officers of a charity and officers of a society.

If there was a mechanism for a readily amendable Schedule or subsidiary legislation, and the original offence in the primary legislation was broad enough and consistent with Parliament's intention to encompass such a situation, then rather than having to come to Parliament to amend the provision to plug loopholes, the Minister could expand on the limbs of an existing provision to tighten the law through a Schedule or subsidiary legislation. While this cannot apply retrospectively, it would be a quick and efficient way to plug loopholes for future cases. Could MHA and MinLaw consider this suggestion, please?

My fifth theme covers section 377A. Sir, I support the Government's decision to retain the provision.

Since speaking on the topic in Parliament in 2007, I have followed the debate in other countries and studied the multiple legal challenges in various jurisdictions which seek to redefine marriage, gender, adoption rights, spousal rights and what is taught in schools. This has caused me to believe that retaining a provision such as section 377A, even if it is unenforced, continues to be a good approach for our country. The provision remains relevant and necessary. Sir, I am of the view that the environment the traditional family unit offers to children supports the state in creating the best environment for the upbringing of children. This environment should be protected. We should build it up and not tear it down. Therefore, my views expressed in 2007 have not changed.

Sir, my sixth theme covers section 309. Clause 89 repeals section 309 – the offence of attempted suicide. I have concerns regarding its repeal. Yes, attempted suicide is an issue which must be addressed with great sensitivity and the topic must be respected with all the attendant empathy it so clearly deserves. However, I have looked at the Ministry's arguments for repealing section 309 and I hold a different view. Section 309 should be retained. In a way, retaining it is the more compassionate approach because, in my view, preserving the provision will save more lives. Retention of the provision has a further advantage. It prevents euthanasia from making its way to our shores.

Sir, do I believe we should help members of our society who are contemplating suicide? Absolutely. Do I think we should enforce section 309 against people who attempt suicide? In most cases, no. But keeping the provision is still of immense value. Why? I humbly submit that there are six reasons.

First, because it sends a normative signal that taking one's life is not the answer to life's problems, to the extent that the law prohibits it.

Second, the repeal of section 309 may send the signal that taking one's life is acceptable to broader society when, in my view, that is not society's thinking.

Three, all the attendant treatment, support, care and counselling can be provided while still retaining the provision. Indeed, when this happens, society would benefit from the deterrent effect of the law. This means that the law would help deter some future suicides in society, while, at the same time, the people who need the counselling and care are able to receive it.

I cite the inspiring words of a courageous young lady who wrote a forum page letter in the Straits Times in February 2019. I quote her: "As someone who overcame suicide and is now a passionate advocate for the sanctity of life, I am sad to see suicide being decriminalised in our nation. Suicide is truly a multi-faceted and complex issue, and the law should not be excluded from having a deterrent effect on people who see death as the only option in their difficult circumstances. I gave up the idea of further suicide attempts after Police officers gently reminded me that attempting suicide was an offence. There was no need for the authorities to restrain or prosecute me, for I was cooperative and clearly in distress. In recent years, I managed to persuade a young foreigner from killing herself just by informing her the offensive nature of suicide in our nation. Human life is sacred and should not be violated, not even by ourselves."

She goes on, "The decriminalisation of suicide perpetuates the erroneous message of 'my body, my choice'. When it is no longer mandatory to report a suicide attempt, people will stop reporting it as it is not a crime." – Ms Ho Lay Ping.

Writing that and putting a name to it takes immense courage and I respect that. There is further value in that story, that real-life story shared by Ms Ho displays why the presence of sections 305 and 306 do not cure the concerns over the decriminalisation of attempted suicide.

Fourth reason, I agree with the Ministry that the stigma against those suffering from mental health should be removed. Indeed, I have spoken up in Parliament about removing such a stigma and increasing community support for those suffering from mental illness in 2018 and in 2019. Such a stigma is not fair. We should not hold mental illness against the person who has it. But the removal of section 309 does not need to be part of that destigmatisation exercise. Why? Because there is a risk that the number of suicides will increase if there is no provision to deter the act. Broader society will have no legal deterrent and those attempting suicide may consider the absence of a prohibition as a licence to attempt the act. If that were to happen, society loses and we could see an increase in the number of suicides in future. I feel duty-bound to articulate that concern in this House.

My fifth reason, there should be mandatory reporting of suicide attempts. Yet, this Bill removes the requirement for mandatory reporting. This, in my view, should be seriously reconsidered since removing the requirement for the mandatory reporting of an attempted suicide removes one means, a crucial means, by which the suicidal person can get the professional help he or she needs.

Sixth, the retention of section 309 consolidates the moral position against euthanasia. For the record, Sir, I support laws that outlaw euthanasia for I believe that an innocent life is as precious through sufferings as it is through joys.

Therefore, for all the six reasons above, I ask the Ministry to seriously reconsider whether it wants to repeal section 309.

If the Ministry wishes to proceed with the repeal, then I ask that a detailed study of the number of suicides following the repeal be undertaken. If the number of suicides in Singapore increases following repeal when compared to pre-repeal numbers, I ask that the Ministry consider re-introducing a provision similar to section 309 back into the Penal Code. For such a detailed study to be meaningful, mandatory reporting should be re-introduced – it should not be abolished. Otherwise, the study may be inaccurate.

In essence, Sir, I urge the Government to closely examine its decision to decriminalise the offence of attempted suicide and closely monitor the impact that it has on our society.

My concerns regarding the abolition of section 309 do not dilute, in any way, my strong support for the other excellent facets of this Bill. After all, the other amendments seek to protect vulnerable victims, ensure our muscular law reaches perpetrators who seek to do Singapore harm from beyond on our shores, retains section 377A and introduces a sentencing framework which allows for the deployment of more accurate justice. Those are strong and commendable initiatives worthy of support.

4.08 pm

Ms Yip Pin Xiu (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir. I would like to thank the Ministry for making changes to the Penal Code. The amendments in Penal Code address various key emerging crime trends and I support these changes.

Under emerging crime trends, I would like to talk about the changes made to tackle voyeurism and the distribution or threat to distribute intimate images.

In this day and age, with the advancements in technology, filming devices are not just getting more sophisticated but also more readily available. It is no longer limited to the conventional bulky devices, or even camera handphones. Instead, a spy camera could be easily ordered online in many shapes and sizes such as in the form of a pen, a clock or even a clothing hook. These cameras are discrete and would practically go undetected in most circumstances.

Further, our society is increasingly connected to the Internet, making it easy to hide behind a screen to circulate the compromising images captured. As of 2018, 84% or 4.83 million of Singaporeans are now Internet users. Hence, the distribution of these images will reach a wider audience, resulting in greater distress to the victim compared to the past.

Although the current law has some penalties for such behaviour, it was passed at the time where voyeurism was less prevalent, as the technology then did not easily allow it. At present times, however, the law does not seem adequate. A CNA report in 2018 stated that there had been an average of 100 Police reports of upskirt crimes that have been filed annually since 2013, and more than 500 cases of insult of modesty since 2015 which include the use of spy cameras. Also, as the devices can be more easily concealed, there could be even more cases that go unreported than before. As such, there is a need to enhance current penalties in order to deter such behaviour.

Next, I would like to talk about the distribution or threat to distribute intimate images. While there has been an effort to educate the public on the dangers of recording images of oneself online in compromising positions, some, especially youths who are more tech savvy, may land themselves in these situations. While filming these images, they were expecting total privacy between the consenting parties. However, if things do go sour, these films could be distributed as part of revenge. While the victims are able to contact platforms to take the videos images down, there could be countless sites hosting these images. And it would require time for such action, during which the images could have been seen by a great number of people. Also, if it falls into the dark web, it could potentially be there forever. Hence, we need a greater deterrence for this too, as the distress and hurt caused to the victim would be much greater than in the past.

With the new amendment, the recording, distribution and possession of such clips will result in harsher punishment. This will commensurate with the hurt and distress caused to these victims, ensuring that Singaporeans are better protected against these emerging crime trends.

To go a step further, the Ministry could consider how to encourage victims of such crimes to come forward and report it to the police, to prevent the perpetrators from causing more harm. We should be mindful not to victim shame, as this is one of the reasons why such crime go unreported. We should also consider providing support to the victims such as counselling where necessary.

4.12 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer attached to a firm that practises criminal law.

The Bill today is the culmination of the work of the Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC), as refined by public feedback. After the Bill was tabled in Parliament for First Reading in February, the Second Reading was deferred to May, which was useful to give the House more time to study the Bill.

The Workers' Party is in general support of the Bill, which makes several broad-based improvements to our primary criminal law, that is the Penal Code, and to related laws. To me, there are four aspects particularly worth mentioning.

First, the Bill updates the law to handle new and emerging crimes such as online crime, for example, the offences of theft and cheating are to be broadened to cover theft by online fund transfers and keying in false information into machines to generate potentially harmful outcomes.

Secondly, there is a new concept of Presumptive Minimum Sentences. This will give sentencing judges some discretion to depart from the mandatory minimum sentences for offences in certain situations. By introducing some flexibility to the Court, there would be less need for plea bargaining, making justice more transparent.

Thirdly, there are changes to strongly deter and punish crimes against victims who are more vulnerable, such as minors under 14, domestic workers and vulnerable adults.

Fourthly, the marital rape immunity will be removed. This has an important signaling effect that society today views marriage as a union between equal partners.

Despite its positives, I have some queries and uncertainty over some aspects of the Bill. For today’s debate, I will focus on just two matters. They are: one, the approach towards offences of causing hurt; and two, vulnerable victims.

First, approach towards causing hurt. For the past decades, the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the Penal Code has been a non-arrestable offence, meaning that the police are ordinarily not able to arrest the suspect without a court warrant. In addition, being a non-arrestable offence, the typical advice given to VCH victims is that the police will not investigate the matter unless the victim goes to court to obtain a Magistrate’s order to direct the police to investigate, or the victim can pursue a private summons against the perpetrator. Pursuing a private summons will require the victim to spend time, effort and costs without police assistance.

VCH is a common offence that occurs daily. When I last filed a Parliamentary Question in 2014 on the incidence of VCH, it was revealed that the cases reported to police amounted to about 10,000 cases a year. This is a large number compared to other reported offences. In fact, the total crimes recorded last year was about 33,000 which, I believe, excludes the 10,000 VCH reports. The figure of 10,000 cases is also likely to be an under-estimate, as many cases go unreported. Of the 10,000 reported cases, only about 600 resulted in criminal charges being filed, a rate of about 6%.

The PCRC is right to note that some past scenarios of VCH can, in fact, be quite serious. In some cases, the injuries may be permanent; there may be elements of bullying or of being outnumbered by a few assailants. Accordingly, I am supportive of the introduction of section 323A to create a new offence of causing grievous hurt even though only hurt was intended. This will now be an arrestable offence attracting higher punishment of up to five years' jail, which the police will be empowered to investigate without a Magistrate’s order.

At the same time, the Committee rightly pointed out that some victims may sustain injuries which are serious and yet do not fall within the definition of grievous hurt, for example, multiple injuries caused in a prolonged attack. The Bill’s response to this is to raise the maximum imprisonment for VCH itself from two years to three years, but to continue to keep it as a non-arrestable offence. It was stated in the PCRC Report that the need for a Magistrate’s complaint would ensure that only meritorious cases were investigated by police. The Report further emphasised that the police did itself take the initiative to investigate and prosecute in the “egregious” cases.

I have some queries about this approach. First, I noted earlier that only 6% of VCH reports resulted in criminal charges being filed. What kinds of scenarios have resulted in the police initiating investigations and prosecutions without a Magistrate’s complaint being filed? How are VCH cases currently triaged for action or non-action? Secondly, of the balance 94% of cases reported where no charges were filed, what is the police assessment of the purpose of the victims when they reported the cases to police? Is there a mismatch of expectations? For example, did most victims expect the police to take some action? From time to time, VCH victims express surprise and disappointment that the police are not taking up their complaints. Thirdly, does the Ministry not acknowledge that relying on victims to file a Magistrate’s complaint requires victims to have the resources and a certain fortitude to navigate the legal system on their own? It is probable that this requirement to see a Magistrate may not necessarily flag out the most meritorious cases, but cases with the most determined victims.

Sir, I am mindful of the workload of the police and I am not asking for all VCH cases to be made arrestable. The changes proposed in the Bill to create the new section 323A and to increase the maximum punishment for section 323 are improvements and will facilitate more robust responses to the more serious VCH cases. Nevertheless, I think the situation needs further clarification and further monitoring to ensure that members of the public get justice for hurt offences.

Next, vulnerable victims. In this Bill, there are particular groups of victims deemed as vulnerable and in need of extra protection. These groups are: children under 14 years of age, domestic workers, vulnerable adults and victims in intimate or close relationships. Such extra protection is found in the amendments to the Penal Code at sections 73 and 74A, and the new sections 74B to E. These sections prescribe that where a victim belongs to one of these vulnerable groups, the offender could be sentenced to twice the maximum punishment applicable to the offence. However, this potential exposure to twice the maximum punishment is subject to a caveat: that if the offender can prove that the victim was capable of protecting herself or himself in the same way as an ordinary person, then the exposure to double punishment would not apply. I am concerned about what this caveat means and how it would potentially undermine the extra protection that was intended. To be more explicit: in what way could it be shown that a domestic worker, a dementia patient or a child under 14 was capable of protecting themselves as any ordinary person? Clarification on this point would be most instructive.

Next, while the Penal Code may be amended to enhance punishments, it would be far better if the provisions were not invoked but, instead, achieve the goal of general deterrence, that is, to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. In this regard, what plans does the Government have to publicise these changes, either to the general public, or in a targeted manner?

Finally, I have a query on minors between 16 but under 18 years old. This Bill introduces new offences to protect those above 16 but below 18 years, if the accused was in a relationship with the victim that is defined as, I quote, an “exploitative relationship” under the new section 377CA. This is an important signal to parents, step-parents, guardians and other persons who are able to exercise some control or influence over the minor not to take advantage of young persons below 18. Protecting minors under 18 is consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which Singapore has signed and ratified.

In this connection, I would like to clarify the amendments being proposed to the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA). Under clause 171 of the Bill, enhancements are being made to protect children and young persons from being ill-treated and from being sexually exploited. Under the current CYPA, the definition of “young person” has a cut-off of 16 years, but the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has announced that it will raise the cut-off age for protection of young persons from 16 years to 18 years. MSF recently conducted a public consultation and intends to table the change later this year. Can MHA clarify whether the changes it is making to the CYPA under this Bill will be brought into effect at the same time that the definition of “young person” is raised to 18 by MSF?

Sir, before I conclude, I feel compelled to raise a reservation about the suggestion by the hon Member Christopher de Souza in his speech earlier. I do not know whether I heard him correctly and he may correct me if I am wrong. But I understood him to be suggesting that certain tools be given to the Government to react quickly to emerging crime trends and one of the examples he gave was that, for example, CBT, as an agent, the Minister should be enabled to gazette new categories of relationships that would come within section 409. I am not sure whether I heard him correctly, perhaps he could clarify that.

Secondly, I feel that this suggestion, if it is correct, is quite dangerous as I do not think it is proper for the Government to be given the power to enact new criminal sections without coming to Parliament. In fact, in the City Harvest case, the Court of Appeal made quite clear that there is need for reform but that should be left to Parliament. So, I hope he is not suggesting that Parliament relinquish its responsibility and delegate to the Minister such vast powers to create new criminal conduct.

Sir, in conclusion, I believe that the Bill, overall, is positive and the Workers' Party supports it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza, if you have any clarifications.

4.23 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza: Yes. I thank Ms Lim for the clarification. Actually, if Ms Lim had listened to my speech carefully, I had actually used the Misuse of Drugs Act as an example of a situation where, if there are new threats, that is, new drugs in the forms of, for example, new psychoactive substances that have hitherto not been deemed as illicit under the Misuse of Drugs Act, then to include that in the Schedule and to say that thereafter the consumption of those types of drugs would be illicit would make for a much more flexible regime. So, I am suggesting that if there are broad categories of provisions – I used CBT as an example, CBT is actually 406 but it can be read with 409 – if you look at that, the broad context of it, is it sufficiently broad as a primary legislation to encompass different permutations in subsidiary legislation? And I never asked for it to act retrospectively. So, I am looking at possibilities to make the system deter future activities through a more flexible use of legal tools. That was my point.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, I would like clarify that I know that he is not making a suggestion about retrospective laws. That would be against the Constitution in the first place. But what I am expressing concern about is that I do not know whether he is suggesting that the Minister be given powers, even prospectively to gazette new offences, new categories of offences that would come within certain sections. I mean, is he saying that MHA is too cautious to have this Bill to spell out certain categories and the Minister should be allowed to gazette new categories as and when he thinks it is necessary?

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza, your final clarification. Make it short.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Actually, that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting a situation where, if you look at other threats that we are facing and one threat is drugs, that the threats morph, that the threats can change in future and, if we have a Schedule, as we do in the Misuse of Drugs Act or classification of drugs that makes a certain type of drug which has yet been concocted and has harm as being illicit to consume, then I think that is a valuable example or a valuable way of looking at whether we can develop our own criminal law in the form of the Penal Code to explore such an avenue. I am not advocating a free rein of the Minister to make, willy-nilly, new offences without coming to Parliament. That was not what I said in my speech.

Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

4.27 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, abuse cases are gaining more prevalence, not just in Singapore, but also globally. I hope it only means that more are seeking help.

It is a basic human right to live in safety and freedom, free of fear from others. Those who deny others this right must be severely dealt with. This Bill comes shortly after the Vulnerable Adults Bill was passed last year. The stronger penalties proposed will strengthen deterrence measures against criminals who prey on vulnerable individuals. It is a testament to the Government’s resolve to protect victims against perpetrators of abuse.

Aside from criminalising and penalising abusive behaviour, we need to continue working hard on preventive measures. Just recently in February, a couple involved in a high-profile maid abuse case were convicted and jailed. It was three years for the woman for a number of terrible deeds, including forcing the maid to drink water mixed with floor cleaner and making her pour hot water on herself. The man was jailed for six weeks for punching the maid. What drives them to do such things? Why did they treat another fellow human being in such a despicable manner? Has any research been done on this to see how we can correct such behaviour and get them to attend some rehabilitation while under detention? What is being done to ensure that their attitude is corrected? This include not just abusers, but abettors and those who repeatedly witnessed the abuse but did nothing.

We also need to look out for those who fall through the cracks. Such examples would include elderly and mentally-disabled people who are confined at home all day and less-educated foreign domestic workers who do not have a social network here and are confined to working at home most of the time. Also, some victims of domestic abuse refuse to seek help because they do not want the abuser to go to jail which, they feel, will bring shame on the family. Some are financially dependent on the abusers. Others believe they can change. Therefore, we all need to look out for possible abuse cases amongst us and help the victims who might not want to seek help.

Last year, I asked in Parliament how MSF can better assess risks of domestic abuse. I shared that, in the US, data analysis programmes help to identify the risks, complementing case workers' judgement. Is this something we can explore with data analytics technology? Also, when people call helplines asking for help for issues like addictive behaviour or family disputes, should we proactively check if there is domestic abuse? After all, these are often factors related to domestic abuse.

While we are on the subject of domestic abuse, I would like to pledge my full support for the removal of marital immunity for rape. A marriage is a union of two individuals and these individuals' personal rights should continue to be preserved and respected. Non-consensual sex is rape and it must be treated as such. I acknowledge the concerns about difficulty in proving consent, or lack of, between a married couple, and this law may even be abused when parties are negotiating a divorce, for example. Can the authorities elaborate on how they intend to navigate this challenge?

I am also glad to see that the Government is doing more to criminalise any action that could lead to sexual trauma to children, including exposing minors to pornographic material. There are some questions that beg solutions. Why are some minors on dating websites or open to dating adults? What are the underlying issues and can we do something about it?

There were also incidences whereby the minor initially rejected the predator's sexual advances but still gave in to requests to send nude pictures or even met up with the predator, which then leads to rape. What is happening here? I am very worried for our young girls and boys who put themselves in such dangerous situations. Is there a lapse in our sex education programme?

A report in 2017 by the SACC, the only specialised centre in Singapore serving sexual assault survivors, revealed that in 90% of the cases received on sexual abuse suffered during childhood or adolescence, the perpetrators were family members or were known to the survivors. Child sex predators have taken the form of neighbours, family friends, mother's boyfriend, son or relative of someone close.

I think in cases where parents have clearly disregarded their child's safety and also when they ignore their child's claims of sexual abuse or clear signs of it, some action should be taken to haul up the parents or guardian for failing in their duty.

Recently, the issue of peeping toms is being covered in the media. I am glad to see that the Bill specifically outlaws voyeurism and the making, distributing, possessing and distributing of voyeuristic images and videos. This is a long overdue move. When someone has been the victim of a peeping tom, it is bad enough. But if a video taken by the peeping tom goes online, then the victim probably feels hurt all over again every time someone watches the video. As I have said in my PQs, I hope we can have a public campaign telling people it is immoral and illegal to forward or watch such videos.

Whether it is peeping tom or other sexual offences, police should go all out to find the person. And the same principles should apply, no matter where the crime was committed. Offenders should be dealt with strictly and tougher action is to be taken. We should send a strong signal that we have zero tolerance for sex harassment. I support the Bill. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The aim of this amendment Bill is to better protect those who are more vulnerable, to ensure that nobody will suffer from fear and is able to enjoy freedom.

I have a few suggestions regarding how we can achieve this aim.

Firstly, those who abuse the vulnerable are indeed perverse and their behaviour is unacceptable. But while we punish them for their actions, can we also look into why they have such a disturbing mentality and how can we help them change that mentality? And those who do nothing despite being aware that abuse is taking place, should also go for counselling and should even be punished.

Secondly, many of these abuse cases take place within the family and it is difficult for the Police to detect them. What can we do to better detect these cases? For example, when somebody calls a counselling hotline and say that a family member is addicted to gambling, or there is a family dispute at home, can the counsellor proactively ask them if there is domestic abuse involved?

Thirdly, with regard to sexual harassment of our youths, how can we educate youths to refrain from discussing sex with strangers so as not to put themselves at risk? Further, we should punish and counsel parents who allow their children to come into contact with sex offenders, as well as parents who are aware that their children have been sexually assaulted but choose not to report to the Police.

Fourthly, voyeurism on campus have been widely reported in the media recently. Under this Bill, punishment for illegally filming others, distributing and watching such videos have been enhanced. I would also like to ask the Police to review the practice of issuing conditional warning and to look into whether such a practice allow offenders to re-offend. I hope that regardless of where these crimes take place, the Police will take a serious view in investigations and punish the perpetrators severely. We should not tolerate sexual harassment at all.

I support this Bill. Thank you.

4.38 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I welcome the Criminal Law Reform Bill. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind".

I will be addressing three areas of the law reform today. First, enhanced punishments; second, the abolishment of marital rape immunity and changes in the definition of rape and consent; and third, the decriminalisation of suicide.

First, enhanced punishments. I wish to commend the Government on its acceptance of the Penal Code Review Committee's recommendations relating to the extension of enhanced penalties for offences committed against the vulnerable amongst us, namely, domestic helpers, vulnerable persons, persons below 14 years of age, victims in intimate relationships and victims in close relationships. The purpose of these sections is clearly to recognise the systemic vulnerability of certain victims and, therefore, the need for commensurate enhanced punishment.

However, Mr Speaker, I am confounded by the incongruence between the policy basis underlying the enhanced penalty regime acknowledging an inherent power asymmetry versus the newly proposed sub-section 73(2) in clause 15. This sub-section renders the section setting out enhanced punishments inapplicable where the accused person is able to prove that his/her relationship with the victim did not adversely affect the victim's ability to protect themselves from harm. Similar wordings appear in the proposed sub-sections 74A(2A), 74B(3), 74C(3) and 74D(3) found in clause 18 of the Bill

In practice, this provision could potentially require the victim to prove that he/she could not have done more to protect himself/herself. There are sadly enough cases of domestic worker abuse. One employer was charged last year for having punched her domestic worker so much over the course of a two-year period such that the latter had become blind in her left eye in addition to suffering from an injured right eye. It is not difficult to imagine a similarly abusive employer, in an attempt to avoid being sentenced with enhanced punishments, citing the exception provided in the proposed sub-section 73(2) and claiming that the mere fact of employment did not adversely affect the domestic helper's ability to raise her arm to stop the punching.

I, therefore, urge the Ministry that the above-mentioned sections be supplemented with illustrations to clarify the scope and limits of the new provision, if the provision is not omitted altogether. I do, however, believe that this should be removed as it inadvertently leads to harsh scrutiny of a victim's actions which encourages a culture of victim-blaming.

My Speaker, equally important to the continued protection of vulnerable persons and groups are that of education and raising awareness. I would like the Minister to clarify on the Ministry's efforts to work with relevant community partners, such as schools, employment agencies and family service centres, to train and raise awareness on the new laws and the additional protection offered to the vulnerable that they support.

Next, on rape. I would like to express my full support for the amendment to abolish marital rape immunity. We are sending a strong signal to where we stand as a society with protecting and advancing women's rights.

Mr Speaker, let me also take this opportunity to commend the expanded legal definition of rape which now uses gender-neutral terms and incorporates many more exploitative scenarios. This is a significant change because it acknowledges that men can be the victims of sexual harassment and assault, too. Not only will male survivors be able to seek legal remedy under this new definition, but this also implicitly acknowledges the unique struggles and social stigmas that male survivors face. As a society, we should move towards de-stigmatising issues related to sexual assault and provide more support to all survivors, regardless of gender.

Mr Speaker, even though the legal barriers for reporting rape are now reduced, there still exists other barriers that discourage rape survivors from actually making a report. For a start, there is an immense informational gap in the definition of "consent" in our laws versus the laypersons' understanding of the same.

I strongly urge for a clear and positive definition of consent for the purposes of judicial review and public education. The Penal Code Review Committee decided against making changes to section 90, citing its general ease of application in Court. I understand the Committee's concerns and acknowledge from the briefing notes on CLRB, that is, this Bill, that the Government intends to create a new section to set out types of misconceptions of acts that will vitiate consent. However, I am concerned that these measures might be insufficient in addressing the problem at hand.

For example, I know of such a case cited by AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC). A survivor initially consented to have sex but later withdrew her consent when she realised that the man was too drunk and was being verbally abusive. However, he threatened to hurt her. So, she eventually complied with his demands for her own safety. When she went to the Police, she was told multiple times, and I quote, "(but) you did consent initially". This discouraged her from formally making a report as she felt she had no case, which was inconsistent with the precedence set by case law.

Case law presents a different yet more straightforward definition of consent compared to what is currently defined in the Penal Code. It covers a number of situations where consent is negated. However, the definition of consent as developed by case law is not codified nor easily accessible. I recommend that we adapt Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's definition of consent, which was referred to in Pram Nair v PP (2017). For ease of reference, the proposed specific definition of consent for sexual activity should be created under "Sexual Offences" of chapter 16 in the Code and should be defined as, I quote: "Consent is the free, informed and voluntary participation in the sexual activity in question. Lack of resistance and submission to sexual activity, in itself, is not consent as a matter of law."

This encompasses the elements of free exercise of choice, voluntary participation and the exercise of choice based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act. I also propose that the Government includes a section to set out six specific situations where either there is no consent in law, or no consent is obtained.

Situation one, where the consent to participate is expressed under fear of injury or wrongful restraint to the person, or to some other person, including the accused. I would like to bring particular attention to the addition of the words “including the accused” to account for the type of situations that SACC has come across where the accused threatens to harm himself if the complainant does not comply with his demands for sexual intercourse.

Two, where the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, mental incapacity, intoxication, or the influence of any drug or other substance, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent.

Three, where the consent is given by a person who is under 16 years of age.

Four, where a person says or does something to show that they are not willing to continue an activity that has started.

Five, where the accused causes or induces the complainant to participate in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority. One could argue that this is already recognised in the proposed section 375(3)(c) on exploitative relationship but that is only for minors. An exploitative relationship can also be a superior coercing his subordinate at the workplace into sexual activity.

Six, where the consent is expressed or implied by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant. This scenario would be applied to situations that SACC has come across where a wife’s consent is assumed if her husband told another man that he can have sex with her.

Mr Speaker, I urge for more to be done on public education, including comprehensive sex education in schools, to improve the public’s understanding of consent. Sex education programmes need to explicitly discuss the meaning of consent and what it means in practice.

Lastly, I would like comment on the decriminalisation of suicide, an issue very close to my heart, given the people I know around me – far and near – who have contemplated and attempted suicide.

Suicide is a taboo topic in Singapore. This Bill offers us, as a society, an opportunity to break the stigma by having a national conversation about it so that more can come forward to seek help. Because these escalating statistics across all ages of our population are telling us we must: children aged five to nine calling the Samaritans of Singapore hotline increased by more than 500% in less than three years. Suicide is the leading cause of death for those aged 10 to 29. The number of elderly aged 60 and above who took their own lives peaked in 2017, the highest since suicide tracking started in 1991.

First, Mr Speaker, we must de-link the convenient and linear association between suicide and mental illness. Many studies have conclusively absolved mental illness as the only cause of suicide. Research has shown that mental illness is associated with 62% of all suicides in Singapore. There are two other risk factors that make up the other 38%. First, life events – for the young – relationships, academic stress, National Service for the young; for the elderly – bereavement, debt, feeling lonely and fear of being a burden; and for working adults – marital, financial, problems like unemployment or failed business, as well as legal problems. The second risk factor is physical illness, another risk factor which means that suicide associated with physical illness, not unexpectedly, increases with age.

I wish to, therefore, express my concern that the Police referring a person attempting suicide to a medical practitioner may inadvertently categorise all suicide attempters as having mental illness who need a medical “solution” and, as such, not be given the optimal and multi-factorial approach he/she needs at that point of distress and after.

There were 361 suicides in 2017 according to SOS. The latest number for attempted suicides is not available but in response to a Parliamentary Question raised in 2015, MSF reported that there were about 1,000 cases of attempted suicides each year between 2010 to 2014. Because suicide is a crime under section 309, reporting of suicide attempts is mandatory as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). This will not be required with the repeal.

The World Health Organization (WHO) urges society and the individuals themselves not to associate suicide with immorality but to approach it with compassion, which I completely agree. It also said that decriminalisation reduces suicide rates. Yet, there have also been studies of seven nations – Canada, England and Wales, Finland, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden – that present a contradicting conclusion where suicide rates were actually higher after decriminalisation.

So, I reluctantly did a dip test with those around me who have contemplated or attempted suicide. None knew that committing suicide was a crime in Singapore at that point of their attempt and most added that it would not have deterred them even if they had known it was. Therefore, I am also not convinced of the deterrent effect of section 309 in preventing suicides. In addition, we know that only 0.6% of reported cases of attempted suicide resulted in prosecution each year between 2013 and 2015 which I surmise, at least in recent years, our Police officers have been taking a compassionate approach in practice anyway, despite suicide being a crime.

Mr Speaker, I think we all agree that a person in distress and attempting suicide should not be treated like a criminal and must be shown care and compassion with the necessary professional and psycho-social support. The repeal of section 309 to decriminalise suicide most definitely helps to de-stigmatise suicide. However, I am concerned that this repeal is not supported with a clear post-decriminalisation strategy, including enhanced psycho-social first-aid training for Police and SCDF officers; coordination between the Police, SCDF, IMH and support agencies, including tracking and monitoring of suicide attempts and support structures, to course-correct should suicides go up after decriminalisation.

With the rising number of suicides with our young and our elderly, decriminalisation of suicide must not be done without reviewing and rebuilding our systemic response towards suicide attempts. We must do more to raise awareness of suicide risk factors, shift perceptions on mental health and deepen community-based efforts in active monitoring, reporting and help-seeking. We must do more to counter the threats of rising suicides amongst our young and elderly. The latter is likely to rise with our ageing population whilst the former is also predicted to escalate with the unrelenting pace of a fast changing digital-dominant future.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments in this Criminal Law Reform Bill demonstrate to a large extent that our laws are keeping apace with our aspirations of being a more inclusive society, especially in the greater protection given to the vulnerable, such as minors, persons with mental or physical disabilities, domestic workers and sexual assault victims. However, we can and must continue to do more for other minority groups that are still stigmatised by our laws, such as 377A, because, through history, we have never made or changed laws only for the majority within our society, including this Bill. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

4.54 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.

With wider use of technology, changing social norms and an evolving crime and criminal environment, it is timely and imperative to review and amend the Penal Code to ensure our criminal laws serve to deter and prevent crime.

I will focus my speech on the new offences relating to voyeurism, crimes against children and a few other provisions.

Rapid technological advancements have led to the development of sophisticated devices and equipment that a perpetrator could easily manipulate to record private acts and distribute recordings of such acts or images of the victim. The recent cases at our University's halls of residence is a timely reminder and further impetus for our laws to keep pace in tackling the rise of such criminal behaviour.

The current law is inadequate to address the problems brought about by advancements in spy and hidden camera technology. Prosecution had to resort to the Films Act and section 509 of the Penal Code to take action against the perpetrator. An obvious lacuna is the absence of any provision to deal with the possession of voyeuristic still images, that is, not films nor videos. I, therefore, welcome the new provisions to tackle and overcome these pitfalls to better prevent and deter voyeurism.

However, I am concerned that the offence might be too broad as to criminalise private investigators in the course of their work, or witnesses trying to make a recording for the purposes of reporting a crime, or caregivers checking on the safety of their charges. Whilst it is acknowledged that the new provisions to criminalise such offences are progressive and keep pace with the changing modes of commission of such offences, it cannot be denied that there is sometimes little comfort to the victims to have the perpetrators punished.

The pivotal concern of the victim, especially the more vulnerable minor and young person, would be to have those images or recordings deleted immediately and to prevent further distribution.

The laws and processes need to address this. One suggestion could be to empower the Courts to simultaneously make an order for the expunging of offending images or recordings when meting out punishments to the perpetrator. In the same vein, punishment of the perpetrator for the offence of possessing or distributing voyeuristic, intimate images or recordings might not end the distribution chain. It is suggested that the perpetrator be compelled by law to disclose the source from which access to the images or recordings was gained. This would enable the law enforcement agencies to trace the original source of the offending act and take the necessary action against the original perpetrator which would prevent the further distribution of the images or recordings.

On the other side of the equation, the perpetrator should be helped and treated since voyeurism is often associated with a recognised psychiatric disorder. The Courts could be empowered to refer the perpetrator, upon the assessment of a psychiatrist, to psychiatric treatment. The appropriate punishments, coupled with psychiatric treatment, could well minimise recidivism.

The global market for child abuse material is growing at an alarming speed, "aided" by advances in technology and the World Wide Web. Children used in the production and distribution of child abuse material suffer horrific immediate physical injuries as well as emotional, mental and psychological disorders with long-lasting repercussions. I, therefore, support the new provisions criminalising activities relating to child abuse material and which define very clearly offences relating to child abuse material.

The new provisions have addressed the lacuna in the law concerning minors of or above 16 but below 18 years of age. It is now an offence when a perpetrator uses or procures minors in this age group for the production, distribution or sale and possession of child abuse material under section 377BL. However, this is an offence only if the minor and the perpetrator are in an exploitative relationship.

It is a defence, by virtue of section 377BM, where the accused person is able to prove that he did not intentionally come into possession of or gain access to intimate image or recording and, on becoming aware that he has in his possession or he has gained access to the intimate image or recording, he has, as soon as practicable, taken all reasonable steps to cease possession of or access to the intimate image or material. The same defence, by virtue of section 377BN, is available to an accused person charged with the offence of having possession of or gaining access to child abuse material under section 377BK.

For the same reasons mentioned earlier, it is suggested that the accused be compelled to disclose the source from which he obtained or gained access to the offending material.

Whilst it is agreed that a tough stance ought to be adopted in the punishment of perpetrators in order that minors below 14 years of age could be protected, it must be noted that punishment alone would not deter or reduce such crimes. Education of minors is essential to enable them to recognise criminal acts against them and just as essential is that the minors must know where they can go to immediately for help and support.

Hence, a robust support system must be established and it is suggested that our schools step up their support system as teachers and school counsellors are usually who the minor will go to for help.

Perpetrators must also be given help and treatment, especially if they are serial offenders. Rehabilitation and therapy including psychiatric treatment or psychological counselling could be made mandatory which should continue after the perpetrator’s release from prison if assessed by a psychiatrist to be necessary for the perpetrator’s complete recovery.

In addition, a support system for perpetrators after their release from prison would help to prevent re-offending. Serial offenders could be monitored either by regulators or their counsellors for a period assessed by their counsellors to be necessary and for a holistic approach towards rehabilitating such perpetrators, mandatory regular reporting to their counsellors could be directed.

I applaud the enhancing of section 509 and making it gender-neutral to balance the protection of not just females but males as well. Even as I support the de-criminalisation of attempted suicide, I hope this move will not be counter-productive and result in more people tempted to this but more support mechanisms from a whole-of-Government and a whole-of-committee approach to help those in need.

With the amendments to the definition of "public servant" to include persons who are employed by contractors engaged to perform certain duties on behalf of the Government or a Statutory Board, such as law enforcement functions and escorting persons in remand and prisoners, I wish to ask Minister to clarify whether private security officers who are not auxiliary police officers will be treated as "public servants" if they are engaged to carry out law enforcement duties such as crowd control and access control, including issuing of summonses for offences and other law endowment duties.

Sir, in conclusion, the Criminal Law Reform Bill has significantly updated our criminal law regime to keep it current and relevant to our present-day society. Outmoded offences have been removed whilst gaps in the law pertaining to new offences brought about by societal changes as well as the gaps in the law pertaining to minors and vulnerable persons have been addressed.

The amendments and new provisions have also codified the law relating to offences which were previously defined by separate pieces of legislation. This Bill has addressed offences thoroughly and comprehensively at this point of time and will help ensure Singapore remain as one of the safest and most secured countries in the world. However, the changes are sweeping and massive.

Police investigators, law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, domestic helpers and the layman will be directly or indirectly impacted by these changes.

I hope a thorough, concerted and multi-pronged approach be taken to cascade, inform and educate the categories of people outlined earlier including potential complainants, perpetrators and the young in general to better understand the plethora of changes and new provisions introduced. The Ministry should partner the various agencies and stakeholders to produce suitable reading, reference material, or simple pocket guides, in easy to read and comprehend format, so that the public and potential victims will know the law has better protected them and would-be perpetrators will know that the law has caught up with them. With these submissions and suggestions, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.02 pm until 5.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.20 pm

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Criminal Law Reform Bill

Debate resumed.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the extensive revisions in the Criminal Law Reform Bill. The careful consultation process that led to this Bill started with the formation of the Penal Code Review Committee in July 2016 and culminated in extensive public engagements after publication of the PCRC Report in September 2018. This should be a model that any complex, far-reaching legislation should follow.

I will speak on the relationship between the law and society. Sir, this Bill is necessary because social standards change over time and yet the law evolves only when statutes are changed or when precedent is set. We no longer believe today that marriage implies the automatic consent of a spouse to sexual relations. It is right that this Bill repeals the marital rape immunity. But the law may also shape society. If laws are not properly limited and implemented, the law may have significant unintended and adverse effects on social behaviour. Less recognised is the fact that social standards also give the law effect. Without a shared consensus around the justness of the law, victims will hesitate to seek justice and offenders will be emboldened.

My concern on the unintended adverse effects of the law relates to this Bill's enhanced protection for vulnerable persons. This Bill enhances criminal law around offences against vulnerable persons, in line with recent reforms, such as the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018. This is important because in our ageing society, the number of vulnerable elderly will increase significantly in the coming years. It is right that the Bill expands protection for such vulnerable adults by making it clear, in the new section 304B of the Penal Code, that neglect and abuse leading to the death of a vulnerable adult are serious offences. Section 304C further provides that persons in the same household have a duty of care to stop such neglect or abuse. Sections 335A and 335B make similar provisions for abuse and acts that endanger life or personal safety. In last year’s debate on the Vulnerable Adults Act, many Members spoke on how vulnerable adults need the protection of the law. I will not reiterate those arguments.

What I want to clarify is how these increased protections in criminal law will sit with the rights of the vulnerable elderly to choose how to live out their days in the manner they consider the best. In the book "Being Mortal", American surgeon Atul Gawande reflects on the excessive focus that modern medicine places on prolonging life rather than on ensuring a high quality of life.

Medical interventions towards the end of life often cause great harm to the dignity or autonomy of patients. The patient must trade the comforts of home for endless nights and days in the intensive care unit. The patient must endure becoming dependent on others for every little aspect of daily living. The additional days or even weeks of life in this state are not always considered worthwhile. Given these trade-offs, many among the elderly, when faced with a medical emergency or a serious illness, may wish to avoid treatment. They will expect their families to interpret and act on their wishes.

I want to be clear I am not discussing euthanasia. While I agree with this Bill's proposal to decriminalise attempted suicide, I think society is rightfully more cautious on the matter of abetting suicide, which is what euthanasia is in practice. These are still very serious offences under the Penal Code.

But there are a wide range of practices at the end of life which are not euthanasia in the ordinary sense. Some practices are widely accepted, such as choosing to refuse resuscitation or artificial life support. These are codified in the Advance Medical Directive Act. Others are more controversial, such as refusing nutrition, medication, or medical advice and treatment.

Consider some examples of decisions made by persons near the end of life. End-stage renal failure patients may choose to stop dialysis. Patients with cancers and other diseases addressable through medical interventions often refuse treatment. The elderly may wish stay at home, instead of going to the hospital when their health deteriorates significantly. Former US President George H W Bush, at the end of his life, informed his staff he did not want to return to hospital and, as a result, he passed on peacefully at home.

Mr Deputy Speaker, which practices may be caught under the law as neglect by the family leading to death of the vulnerable adult? What makes an otherwise accepted practice neglectful, given that there will be concerns about the mental capacity of vulnerable adults and their physical inability to seek treatment without the support of their family? Which practices do we want to proscribe in the law?

Sir, the law is like Chekov's gun. If the law is written in the first chapter, then we can expect it will be used in the next. Consider some concrete examples. Family members may disagree on the appropriate medical intervention for a gravely ill vulnerable adult and, if they cannot prevail in a discussion, they may consider involving the law. A gravely ill vulnerable adult may lose autonomy in their decision to stop treatment, because the family is both concerned the adult lacks mental competence and the family fears breaking the law. A healthcare or social work professional may refer a case to the police because they believe the vulnerable adult or the family is refusing treatment so as to constitute neglect.

There may be cases where the family does fail in its duty of care. Yet, we do not want cases to be referred unnecessarily to the law. The Terry Schiavo case in the United States created a protracted legal battle over the so-called right to die. Mrs Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband, who was her legal guardian, argued she would have wanted withdrawal of artificial life support. Her parents disagreed. The case was exploited for political purposes and resulted in a 15-year legal battle.

A landmark case that determined the particular standard of care required, to avoid the charge of neglect at the end of life, could have severe impact on the practice of medicine and the rights of families and the vulnerable elderly.

This House has expressed grave concerns about the growing practice of defensive medicine. Given that aggressive medical intervention in the last stage of life is often futile, costly and harmful to the dignity and autonomy of the patient, we would not want such interventions to become routine simply because of legal precedent, or fears by medical professionals and family members about their potential legal liability.

So, I ask the Government to provide clarity. What is expected of the medical treatment of a vulnerable elderly adult near the end of life in the home environment? To what extent can, or should, the wishes of the vulnerable adult be respected with regards to medical treatment and other acts that affect life? For example, is it neglectful if the family does not convey a gravely ill vulnerable adult to hospital, because of their expressed desire to pass on at home? What if the vulnerable adult wishes to stop routine medical medication and consultation? How can families assure themselves that their actions are lawful and in furtherance of the vulnerable adult’s wishes to live a good life until the end?

I note that the Minister for Social and Family Development touched on these issues in the debate on the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018, which also enhanced penalties for offences against vulnerable adults. This Bill, however, proposes specific sections of the Penal Code which may affect the autonomy of vulnerable adults and their families in making end of life decisions and so, should be addressed separately today.

Next, my concern on the social standards that give the law effect are centered on this Bill’s expanded protection from sexual offences. These revisions, include removal of the limited marital immunity defense for rape in section 375 of the Penal Code and substantive new provisions in sections 376 and 377 on consent, voyeurism, sexual exposure and child abuse. This is progressive and important.

But I fear that enhancing these provisions against sexual offences may be meaningless if we are ultimately hypocrites as a society and we do nothing about the social norms that tolerate such behaviour. The experience of many countries in recent years with the #MeToo movement is instructive. In many countries there are already strict laws against sexual offences and sexual harassment. Yet despite decades of actively enforced law, we had the #MeToo movement – a grassroots movement by women fighting against sexual harassment as a daily fact of life that women felt they had to accept in order to progress in their chosen careers. The law, in short, was not an effective recourse for many women around the world. Nor did the law restrain the behaviour of many men.

These issues are also present in Singapore. Ms Monica Baey has bravely highlighted her own experience as a victim of voyeurism, which has shown inadequacies in how her institution handles sexual misconduct cases. After she came forward, other women reported similar experiences. As Ms Baey posted on Instagram on 1 May 2019 and I quote: "I hope that Singapore has reflected on what has happened, why this blew up as big as it did and learn not to avoid issues but rather face the hard reality – sexual misconduct and assault is much more prevalent than it appears to be."

Sir, these revisions of the law are just a means to the end. The social objective must be to create the conditions for a society where the law is rarely applied because all segments of society accept that these acts are wrongful and there are strong cultural and social norms against such sexual offences. The criminal justice system cannot undo the harms caused by a sexual offence. The trauma of an offence will remain with the victim for life. Serious efforts to correct this must start with attempting to understand the actual incidence of sexual offences and harassment in Singapore, the social conditions around the normalisation and perpetration of such offences amongst some social circles and applying the right educational and policy levers to correct those social conditions. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

5.34 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as a litigation lawyer. I have a practice. Given the Bicentennial Commemoration this year, I think it would be apt to pay tribute to the original framers of the Penal Code, which is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Singapore, in the administration of criminal justice in Singapore. Prof Ho Peng Kee, then the Senior Minister of State of Home Affairs, colourfully described the Penal Code as "the mother of all statutes" when it was last reviewed in this House in 2008. There are masterful commentaries about the history of the Penal Code in two text books. The first book is "The Criminal Law in Malaysia & Singapore" by Professors Stanley Yeo, Neil Morgan and Chan Wing Cheong. Incidentally, Prof Stanley Yeo and Prof Chan volunteered as members of the Penal Code Review Committee. The second book is "The Development of Singapore Law: Historical and Socio Legal Perspectives" by Prof Andrew Phang as he then was. I relied on these commentaries in the preparation of my speech.

The principle framer of the Penal Code was Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. In 1837, the Law Commission, which he chaired, produced the draft of the Penal Code. For the draft, Lord Macaulay drew inspiration not just from English common law but two other sources: (a) the French Napoleonic Penal Code of 1791 and (b) Livingstone’s Code for Louisiana which was printed in 1833.

He drew from the best ideas from continental Europe, America and UK. Already then, it was not uncommon to trawl the world for best ideas to be incorporated into draft legislation. Eventually, the Penal Code was introduced in India in 1860. A decade later, substantially the same copy of the Indian Penal Code with its 511 sections was enacted as law in Singapore through Ordinance 4 of 1871 when Singapore was part of the Straits Settlement. Since then, law students, lawyers and our Courts have referred to Indian case law when interpreting our Penal Code provisions.

What were the main objectives of the Penal Code then? The principle objective was to codify common law criminal offences – which is really judge-made law – and in the words of Prof Phang, "replace the manifold systems of criminal law then existing" with a single code. The Penal Code allowed lay people to understand what kind of action and behaviour amounts to criminal conduct as well as the precise ingredients that make up the offences. Almost 150 years later, the Penal Code continues to play an important role in the administration of the criminal justice system. It clearly withstood the test of time. The Penal Code is applied every day in the State Courts.

Given the evolving nature of our society and our mores, the Penal Code had to be, and indeed was, revised from time to time ensure its relevance. As mentioned earlier by the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Amrin, the last revision of the Penal Code was done by this House a little over a decade ago in 2008.

I have reviewed the work of the Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC) chaired by the hon Minister Ms Indranee Rajah and co-chaired by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin. The PCRC members are all eminent people drawn from the judiciary, legal service, Ministries, academia and private practice. Together, with their collective knowledge, experience and wisdom, they are uniquely well-placed to undertake the review. As we heard from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin, they delivered a 500-page tome. I believe that this House owes the PCRC a debt of gratitude for executing the gargantuan task of updating the Penal Code so well. I also commend MHA, just like what Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said, for conducting extensive consultation with the public and VWOs before presenting this Bill.

A simple perusal of the Bill will reveal the extraordinary breadth of the review that was undertaken. We see updates on the following areas: (a) the extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction of the offences; (b) concepts of fault and physical elements that usually make up an offence. These elements are the equivalent of the "computer source codes" of the criminal provisions; (c) general defences that may be raised by accused persons; (d) creation of new offences and enhancement of sentences to protect the vulnerable and minors and to deal with modern circumstances and advances in technology; (e) updating of sentences to ensure their deterrent effect; and (f) removing offences which are seen as anachronistic or irrelevant.

The recommendations that the Committee made took into account issues raised by our Courts in many judgments. I am reasonably assured that, with these enhancements, the revised Penal Code, once passed, will continue to play an important role in the administration of criminal justice in Singapore.

I would now like to make several observations and comments on the Bill. First, I am glad that the hon Minister, through a notice of amendment issued on 26 April 2019, accepted my suggestion made outside this House after the First Reading of this Bill to remove the thought crime provisions; namely sections 121A and 121B in the Penal Code.

Presently, it is an offence to imagine the death or hurt or imprisonment or restraint of the President and the accused, if convicted, may be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life. It is also an offence to imagine the deposition of the President from the sovereignty of Singapore. These are clearly anachronistic provisions. It simply does not sit well with the mores and values of present-day society. I am not alone in making this call. The hon Member Mr Charles Chong made this call in 2008 in this House. He said, "It is of course right that anyone who plots, plans or actually takes action against the person or the Office of the President ought to be punished, but merely 'imagining' any of these – should this really be in our books?" It did not appear Mr Chong's question was answered then. Nonetheless, it has been answered now.

Second, I note that proposed section 120A dealing with "criminal conspiracy" is significantly narrower. The proposed provision would have the effect of decriminalising a conspiracy to commit an illegal act, which was defined as anything that furnishes ground for a civil action. May I please ask what is the rationale for this? How does the narrowing of the definition of "criminal conspiracy" reflect on the expected sense of behaviour within our society? How does this square with the retention of the offence of criminal defamation under section 500 of the Penal Code which focuses on vindication of reputation. As Members know, people who have been defamed, also have a right of civil action too. I have also noted that, potentially, aggravated acts of defamation, such as "threats imputing the unchastity of a woman" under section 506 of the Penal Code; and "insulting the modest of a woman" under section 509 of the Penal Code are proposed to be repealed. What then is the basis to continue to make defaming another a criminal matter in these circumstances?

Third, I have misgivings just like the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, on the proposal to abolish section 309 of the Penal Code which currently criminalises an attempt to commit suicide. I appreciate the point made by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin as well as the PCRC that "persons who commit such offences should undergo treatment instead". I wish to point out though that section 309 of the Penal Code, read with the Criminal Procedure Code, now allows the Court to impose on persons convicted for the offence of attempting suicide, mandatory treatment orders aimed at providing psychiatric treatment for such persons in lieu of the jail term provided in the Penal Code. This would therefore take care of the concern expressed by the PCRC.

There is also a practical function. It allows the Police to intervene by arresting and sequestering the person in a safe environment; for example, a padded cell, so as to stabilise his or her condition. I understand from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin that it is proposed that the Police be given powers to intervene. I seek a clarification, on the basis and extend of these powers, as well as, when is it expected for these Police Officers to be vested with such powers. Finally, there is a signalling effect to would-be offenders, and this is a point that was made by speakers before me too.

Next point, I believe there is a basis to consider amalgamating Penal Code provisions which cover the same ground as provisions in specific pieces of legislation. This will allow for more uniform application of the law dealing with the same area. In addition, reforms of these areas can be done more quickly, instead of waiting for the next review of the Penal Code.

In this regard, I commend the move to transfer the Chapter XX offences dealing with "offences relating to marriage" to the Women’s Charter. Similarly, the Penal Code provisions dealing with kidnapping could have been consolidated with the provisions in the Kidnapping Act. This also would be an opportunity to deal with and remove an anomaly in sentencing. Kidnapping under the Kidnapping Act may be punishable by death. It is not the case in Penal Code.

Also, the corruption offences vis-a-vis "public servants" in the Penal Code could be merged with the Prevention of Corruption Act. I seldom hear of these provisions in the Penal Code being invoked nowadays. Again, the Penal Code punishment for corruption offences is lighter than the Prevention of Corruption Act equivalent. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.

5.44 pm

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Criminal Law Reform Bill could not have arrived in a timelier manner, especially in light of the changing crime environment in Singapore by virtue of the proliferation of social media and smart phone use. I would like to commend MinLaw, MHA and PCRC for working unceasingly over the past two years, soliciting feedback from various sectors both private and public; from judges and private practitioners to academics, Police, as well as public consultations from selected groups and social organisations working with vulnerable victims.

The outcome of the Bill is one that is relevant, practical and well calibrated to ensure that the vulnerable are protected, and the resulting punishments accurately reflect moral culpability.

I am very heartened to hear that the latest changes repeal marital immunity for rape and introduce higher penalties for offences knowingly committed against vulnerable victims. These also include charging members of the household guilty of offence for causing or allowing the death of a child under the age of 14.

While we have a comprehensive, robust Bill to protect victims from criminal offenders, it is contingent upon us to constantly look for ways to facilitate the reporting of domestic violence. The reasons for not reporting can be complex as they range from social, psychological and financial considerations to the ease of reporting.

I would like to take this opportunity to laud MSF for their considerable efforts over the years to introduce more rigorous screening tools, training more professionals in operating these tools, and creating more public awareness towards these issues. Their endeavours have led to enhanced detection, reporting and management of child abuse cases, resulting in a very significant increase of 60% in reporting.

However, there is always room for improvement. A quote from social workers from a Straits Times' article in 2017 has indicated a disparity where, "when a child is abused by a stranger, family members are quick to report, however, this is not so when the abuser is a family member."

In recent years, there has been a trend of cases involving children dying or severely traumatised from brutal, chronic physical, psychological and sexual abuse in households. And to hear of this is absolutely heart-breaking.

It is also very distressing that most child abuse cases in Singapore involve care-givers. In 2015, MSF was quoted by The New Paper stating that "in the 64 cases of alleged sexual abuse reported and investigated from January to September 2015, for every case, the alleged perpetrator was a family member or someone residing in the same household as the victim."

These cases often go unreported as the victims are afraid that the family may be devastated. The victims, more often than not, are unable to fend for themselves or are too afraid to come forward to seek help. As such, it is of paramount importance that members of the public such as the neighbours, relatives and friends are encouraged to come forward to identify victims of family violence.

In a similar vein, spouse abuse is the most common form of family violence in Singapore. A study by the organisation PAVE, based on 3,600 cases over the last 10 years, found that victims who are physically or psychologically abused by their spouse made up a disquieting 72% of new cases.

In the interest of reducing prolonged cases of domestic violence and abuse, I request that a central dedicated hotline be set up with trained personnel to handle all domestic violence calls.

Concurrently, a standalone app or feature should be introduced our current municipal app such as OneService or SG Secure to handle all social abuse ranging from child, spouse, elderly or other vulnerable groups and even include animal abuse to allow for a more coordinated response. This way, victims do not have to be routed to call various touchpoints and repeat their accounts.

This dedicated hotline and app can be designed to offer all victims of domestic abuse immediate relief from their plight in three stages: firstly, through crisis intervention and counselling; next, indoctrination and action on the various channels of recourse; and consequently, a successful resolution and rehabilitation.

Our current system requires victims to call various resources at different hotlines, which is confusing and can be a deterrent. The staff working at this central hotline and app can be trained in crisis intervention, and will be assigned to handle individual cases to build rapport with victims through counselling. They can then coordinate with local resources such as the Police, hospitals, or pro bono legal aid for a more integrated, victim-centric care.

The staff can then work out a personalised safety plan, which will include how to receive financial assistance and how to gather evidence of abuse if the case goes to Court. In the event that the victim cannot continue residing in their home for fear of continued abuse, coordinating staff will assist to put them up in a temporary shelter and seek protection order on their behalf with their consent.

Victims can also be directed to websites such as AWARE through the app, where information on domestic violence education can be found. This is if they feel the need to consider their situation before taking further action. It is also vitally important that an algorithm be implemented in the app to separate the more urgent cases and triage victims who require immediate medical attention from abuse.

Through these processes, victims will be able to chart their journey towards restitution and rehabilitation should they choose to lodge a formal report. They will also be educated on frequently asked questions, and fully assured that there will be no backlash from their abusers.

There have been many precedents where victims have successfully sought recourse through lodging a report, and these inspiring stories should be made aware through the app to encourage reporting. This central hotline and app can also be a platform for members of the public or bystanders to report abuse cases with anonymity, and an avenue where they can be taught how to help victims of abuse.

However, while most do not report such cases to the authorities or hotlines, many may want to seek advice or information for family members or friends. Having a standalone app or a secondary municipal app feature will be useful in encouraging reporting or seek information on how to help abuse victims. Members of the public may be more comfortable making a report online compared to calling a hotline.

There are many examples of such apps available overseas and their features which can be used as reference. The Smartsafe app, by the Domestic Violence Resource Centre in Australia or the Bright Sky app by the UK charity body are a few examples.

These free apps help women collect detailed evidence in order to obtain a protection order or prove a breach of one. They collect photographs, videos and recordings and save them off-device to ensure that the evidence is protected and can be used in court later when victims are ready to lodge a report.

The Daisy app in Australia provides information about support services within vicinity and includes safety features to help protect the privacy of people using it.

In the United States, the Sojourner Peace app is available in multiple languages and provides resources for victims of domestic abuse in a quick and discreet way. It also provides links and phone numbers to places where survivors can seek help, and access to the Sojourner's 24-hour domestic violence hotline.

To recap and emphasise, an app mentioned above would greatly benefit victims of domestic abuse and facilitate the ease of reporting for abuse cases. By adding features such as discreet evidence gathering, a one-touch police alert option and the central hotline number, we can ensure that every service is synergised to provide the best protection and survivor-centric help to all victims of domestic violence in Singapore. Notwithstanding my above points, I stand to support the Bill.

5.53 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The comprehensive amendments proposed to the Penal Code are timely and will serve to ensure that our laws remain relevant in the new digital era. However, I would like to seek clarifications on some parts of the Bill.

First, I strongly support the proposed amendment that targets voyeuristic activities. As MHA and MinLaw have noted, there is a bustling online marketplace for upskirt photographs and videos. Unfortunately, the current law we have is inadequate to address the problems brought about by the advancements in micro camera technologies and the prevalence of such cameras to the general public.

There is a need for targeted laws to outlaw the act of observing or recording a person without their consent. But while this will serve to protect victims of voyeurs, some private investigators (PI) have expressed concerns. How would they be impacted by this new offence? Can the PIs continue to conduct surveillance operations to collect evidence for their clients?

Next, I am in full support of the repeal of marital rape. This is a long-awaited change. Married women should have the same access to protection as unmarried women. But there remain practical challenges in implementing this. Some of my residents have also spoken to me to voice concerns over potential false allegations of rape by an estranged spouse. This is not inconceivable for strained relationships. I would therefore like to ask what safeguards are there to ensure such allegations are carefully dealt with.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I also welcome the proposed new section 304C which makes it an offence to cause or allow the death of a child or a vulnerable person. Notable cases in recent years have made this change necessary. In 2016, two-year-old Mohamad Daniel Mohamad Nasser died after five weeks of abuse by his mother and her boyfriend. In 2017, a couple tortured 26-year-old waitress Annie Ee Yu Lian who had intellectual disabilities for eight months. She subsequently died. In both cases, the victims were vulnerable and abused by their care-givers.

The new provision proposed in section 304C would apply to both the person who committed the unlawful act as well as to someone who witnessed the abuse, but stood by and did nothing to stop the abuse. While this deterrent will provide greater protection to vulnerable people by putting the onus on witnesses to report the abuse, but what if the witness was also a victim of abuse – either mentally or physically – by the perpetrator?

For example, take the case of a mother who is a victim of abuse herself and out of fear, she did nothing to stop the abuse to her child. She would have been liable under the new proposed section 304C. I would therefore urge that we consider such circumstances and the mental state of the individuals before we consider prosecution.

Mr Deputy Speaker, another proposed amendment is to raise the minimum age for criminal responsibility to 10 years old, up from the current seven. I note that this was a recommendation by the Penal Code Review Committee, which was of the view that raising the minimum age would not be a significant risk to public safety. While this change might seem reasonable if we compare the minimum age to global benchmarks, I have my concerns and ask that we could perhaps also look at things in a local context. Let me explain.

Locally, we are experiencing an increasing trend of reported cases of children beyond parental control (BPC). The number of cases has risen from 71 in 2016, to 108 in 2018. The ages of these children are also getting younger. Statistics from MSF show that for those between 11 and 12 years old, the number of BPC cases increased almost three-fold from three in 2016 to eight in 2018, while those in the age band of 13-14 years old saw an increase of more than two-fold, from 24 cases in 2016, to 56 cases in 2018. According to recent reports by MSF, we are also seeing BPC cases involving children 10 years old and younger. In my previous life as a Police officer, I was always concerned to see young offenders, especially who were still in Primary schools.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this upward trending of beyond parental control cases goes against the proposed increase of minimum age for criminal responsibility. I worry that it would lead to a phenomenon where unruly, unsupervised young children can possibly commit crimes without liabilities. We must watch this trend carefully. We need to pay close attention to young at-risk children, as well as the number and age of young offenders arrested for crime. More importantly, are there plans to effectively arrest the trending increase of beyond parental control cases?

Lastly, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code have generally resulted in increases to the maximum jail sentences. This would possibly lead to a corresponding increase in jail time meted out to offenders. What would be the impact on our prisons, and does our Prison Service have the resources, both in terms of infrastructure and manpower, to support this?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by reiterating my support for the proposed amendments in the Criminal Law Reform Bill. The amendments are essential to ensure that our Penal Code continues to remain relevant in today’s context. I would also like to thank the men and women in the Penal Code Review Committee for the hard work put in over more than two years to put together this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.00 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a lawyer in a firm that handles criminal matters. Sir, this is an extensive Bill which covers many areas of amendments of the Penal Code and several other Acts. I would like to focus my speech on the amendments relating to the enhancement of punishments for offences committed against vulnerable persons and the new offences for acts committed against vulnerable persons. Allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A few years ago, we were jolted by the news about the death of Ms Annie Ee, an intellectually disabled person who was abused, tortured and punished by her housemates. Many people condemned the heinous acts inflicted on Annie, especially in view of her condition which made her more vulnerable to abuse, and those who committed those acts were people who were close to her. After the court case ended, many felt that the sentence imposed was not commensurate with the crime. At that time, many asked why the couple who committed the offences were not charged with murder. The couple had pleaded guilty to various charges of causing grievous hurt. The current legislation requires the prosecutor to prove that the final action committed had led to death. This was difficult to do when the torture took place over a long period of time.

Another case that jolted Singaporeans was the one where there was abuse inflicted on a toddler, Muhamad Daniel Muhamad Nasser, who was only two years old. He was kicked and slapped by his mother and her boyfriend almost every day and forced to eat dried chillies. The toddler eventually died due to head injuries. These cases shake us to the core as human beings. These people who commit atrocities on defenceless victims deserve a heavier punishment. It is a reflection of our principles as a society to strongly condemn inhumane actions towards those who are vulnerable.

Over the past several years, we seem to see several cases involving victims who are unable to defend themselves and the current punishment do not appear to be commensurate with the heinous crimes inflicted on the victims. According to a report by the Straits Times in September 2018, at least five such cases were brought to the courts between 2016 and 2017, compared to seven cases between 2000 and 2011.

Something needs to be done, and I am glad to see proposals within this Bill that increases the punishment on those who abuse and torture defenceless victims, who are unable to defend themselves because of their own condition and also because they have close relations with the perpetrator. There are also suggestions for a new type of offence for abuses that lead to the victim’s death. I think this is a good thing and I support the recommendations.

(In English): When people first heard about what happened to the late Annie Ee, there was condemnation against the heinous acts carried out against her. When people heard about the charges and the punishments imposed on the perpetrators, many voiced out their concerns that the punishments were not commensurate to the severity of the crime and the fact that Annie, was especially vulnerable as she was intellectually disabled. At that time, the Attorney-General's Chambers explained the specific circumstances which led to her unfortunate death and the limitations of the law which requires evidence that the abuser had the intention to cause death or fatal injury.

Therefore in cases, where the abuse consists of a series of acts that eventually leads to death, the abuser is likely to be prosecuted under the crime of causing grievous hurt, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years' jail, with possible fine and caning. In Annie’s case, the perpetrators eventually pleaded guilty to various counts of causing grievous hurt and causing grievous hurt with a weapon.

Cruelty against vulnerable individuals particularly offends our sense of morality as the victims are helpless and their ability to protect themselves is limited. To quote the Penal Code Review Committee, society reserves "special disapprobation" for the abuse of vulnerable people by their care-givers or others in a position of trust. There must therefore be appropriate and commensurate penalties against offences of such nature. I am therefore supportive of the proposed enhancements of the penalties for offences against vulnerable persons in this Bill.

I note that in the wake of Annie Ee's case, the public also reflected on how such a prolonged abuse could have taken place with no one reporting the same to the authorities. The Vulnerable Adults Act, which was the outcome of and was in response to various concerns regarding abuse against the vulnerable adults, which had been raised even preceding Annie Ee's case, also took into account recent cases and allowed for more detection of abuse and protection for the vulnerable. The amendments proposed today, addresses the other concerns about penalties and hopefully forms a deterrent against such heinous conduct. I would like though, to seek a clarification about how the proposed clauses in this Bill would sit vis-a-vis the terms in the Vulnerable Adults Act. In particular, I would like to seek clarification on the difference between the definition of "vulnerable person" in this Bill and "vulnerable adult" in the Vulnerable Adults Act. I believe a clarification may aid in the future applications of both pieces of legislation.

Clause 83 of this Bill seeks to introduce new sections 304B and 304C to the Penal Code. The new section 304B relates to causing death of a child below 14 years of age, domestic worker or vulnerable person by sustained abuse. The new section 304C relates to causing or allowing death of child below 14 years of age or vulnerable person in the same household. I note the distinction made between the two new sections. I would like to seek a clarification on why the offence of "causing or allowing a vulnerable victim to die" is applicable to persons in the same household who have frequent contact with the victim, while the offence of "allowing neglect, physical or sexual abuse" appears to only be applicable to care-givers and employers of domestic workers. What is the rationale for the difference in the scope of liability in these provisions?

I would also note that in criminalising the offence of causing or allowing the death of child under 14 years of age or vulnerable person in the same household, we need to be cautious not to prosecute those who are in the same household but may not have the power to stop the abuse as they themselves may be suffering from the abuse. The Minister had earlier addressed this concern. I note that the offence will only be made out if there is a failure to take reasonable steps to protect the victims. I appreciate and thank the Minister for the clarification. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my queries and comments, I support this Bill.

6.07 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to first wish all our Muslim colleagues, "Selamat Berpuasa", the start of Ramadan.

The Criminal Law Reform Bill seeks to amend the Penal Code and bring it up to date. The Penal Code, as mentioned by many colleagues, is an important piece of legislation in Singapore, as it consolidates laws that relate to criminal offences. First enacted as the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1871, the Act has been reformed on numerous occasions to bring it up to date. In recent decades, in 1973 – there were enhancement of punishments to curb the use of violence by criminals; in 1984 – introduction of more deterrent punishments for certain offences; in 1998 – enhanced punishments for abuse of domestic helpers; and in 2008, a decade ago – amendments to expand the scope of offences.

Today, we are making important amendments to the Code. This is the result of two years of discussion by the Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC). There are 169 substantive recommendations. After the recommendations, there was engagement with more than 700 stakeholders and with submissions from over 60 individuals and organisations.

I applaud the committee and the Ministry for undertaking this much needed review. There has been robust consultation, and the taking on board of suggestions and feedback. As the Bill involves many changes which many of my hon colleagues have already covered, I will confine my speech to two particular areas which I had previously raised in this House.

First, on gender neutrality. In May 2016, I highlighted that our current penal code is not gender neutral and made a request to the Ministry to consider reforming our Penal Code. This was in relation to the April 2016 case of PP vs Zunika Ahmad. In this case, she was acquitted by the High Court of six charges section 376A(1)(b) of sexually penetrating a 13-year-old in a landmark decision. The case was subsequently heard in appeal before the Court of Three Judges. The apex court overturned the High Court decision. The hon Chief Justice emphasised that section 376A was to be gender-neutral.

While the Court has recognised the gender neutrality of section 376 as it stood at that time, I am heartened that the PCRC has also proposed amendments to sections 375 and 376, so that the definition of "rape" would include non-consensual penetration and mean that men can be victims of rape as well. It also expands protection to cover a victim that is an adult male who is forced to engage in penetrative sex against his will by a female perpetrator. This brings the statutes up to date and affords men, especially juveniles protection.

We do not as yet have such confusion in our laws that have led to unbelievable circumstances elsewhere, such as in the 1993 case heard before the court in Kansas in the United States. Hermesmann vs Seyer was a pivotal case in the US, where a woman convicted of statutory rape of a minor and was pregnant as a result of the act, later successfully sued to claim child support from her victim. It is hope that such a situation would never arise in Singapore.

Second, with regard to Child Abuse Material, I raised a question in April 2017 to ask if the Minister of Home Affairs will introduce specific laws on child pornography. I am glad that the public consultations show broad support to criminalise non-fictional child abuse material. The new section criminalises non-fictional child abuse as well as fictional child abuse material where it is indistinguishable if the child portrayed is real or fictional.

The punishments are hefty and rightfully so. A term of imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, and liable to fine and to caning for using or involving a child in production of child abuse or producing child abuse material under 377BG (2) and 377BH (2). The term of imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and liable to fine and to caning for distributing or selling child abuse material as well as a term of imprisonment which may extend to five years, and liable to fine and to caning for advertising or seeking child abuse material.

However, child abuse material should be abhorrent in whatever form it takes, whether it is non-fictional or fictional, and I add whether it involves a real child or a virtual one. The law seeks to recognise the special harm and depravity inherent in child abuse material and child pornography. As such, any material, in any form, should be considered equally abhorrent for its intent.

Therefore, I ask that the Ministry to consider including the criminalising of all fantasy or virtual child abuse material, which is what is usually termed as non-photographic pornographic images of children (NPPIC). Criminalised NPPIC should include but not be exclusive to cartoons, animations and drawings. Even if they are not indistinguishable that the child portrayed is real or fictional.

We will not be alone in this – sections 62-68 of the UK Coroners and Justice Act, sections 1466A(a)(1) and (2) of the US Protect Act, section 1(17) of the Thailand Criminal Code Act. The UNHCR Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography also refers to child pornography as any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child primarily for sexual purposes.

Existing legislation is not as robust. Sections 6(1) and (2) of the Undesirable Publications Act only imposes a conviction for a first offence to a fine of $2,000 to an amount not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or three years. The same is so for the Film Act. The late Dr Victor Cline, who was Professor of Psychology, did in-depth research into sex addiction and pornography. He describes four stages of sexualisation – addiction, escalation, desensitisation and actualisation. His research shows those addicted to pornographic materials will want and will seek more explicit or extreme material and likely end up desiring to act out what they have seen.

Just earlier this afternoon, Minister Ong Ye Kung also alluded to the normalisation of behaviour with the availability of obscene material online. Minister Shanmugam also spoke in his speech for the Second Reading of this Bill that the inclusion of materials which are indistinguishable whether the child portrayed is fictional or non-fictional is to remove the defence by any accused that the material that he or she has been caught with is fictional. Therefore, should it not be the case that all child abuse material in whatever form it takes should be criminalised?

I therefore believe there is fertile ground to include all child abuse material as I have described because technology will make it ever harder to distinguish real and virtual as well as the psychological correlation progressing from virtual to real consumption

Although I believe that the amendments to the Penal Code as proposed under the Criminal Law Reform Bill are much needed and have been robustly discussed, I ask that my proposal to criminalise all forms of child abuse material including NPPIC be considered. Notwithstanding my comments and proposal, I support the Bill.

6.16 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the proposed changes to the Criminal Law Reform Bill are timely and relevant. In general, these amendments reflect sentiments on the ground. The amendments have broadly enhanced protection for the vulnerable in the society and tackles emerging crime trends. I am glad our legal justice system is sufficiently nimble to move with the times and I stand in support of the Bill.

However, there are a few sections which I have some concerns with.

According to World Health Organization (WHO), Singapore ranked 62 out 176 countries with suicide rate of with almost 10 suicides per 100,000 people. This also means that Singapore has 2.5 times more deaths from suicide than transport accidents in 2017, when 361 people killed themselves. In terms of trends, men accounted for over 66% of these deaths. The number of elderly aged above 60 who took their own lives also reached an all-time high in 2017, at 129 suicides. This is the highest since suicide tracking started in 1991.

With the current Bill, section 309 of the Penal Code is repealed. This means that attempted suicide is no more a crime. We finally recognise that it is more important to rehabilitate and support those who want to commit suicide, rather than arresting and prosecuting those who have attempted suicide.

As a Police officer in my younger days, I had attended to suicide cases as well as attempted suicide cases. In one very memorable instance, I had to visit a young lady in the hospital after her second failed attempt at suicide. I had to record her statement and warned her that it was an offence to attempt suicide. She was indifferent. She could not care less about what I said. A few days later, she made a third and final attempt, and was successful.

For people who are determined to end their lives, arrest and threat to charge her in court is a poor deterrent to re-offending.

With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister how many cases of attempted suicide were reported from 2010 to 2018? Of those, how many persons were arrested? How many persons were arrested repeatedly?

Under the current law, abetment of suicide is a crime. I would also like to ask the Minister, how many cases of abetment of attempted suicide were reported from 2010 to 2018?

The above statistics are important for us to understand the underlying trends of suicide rate in Singapore and the effectiveness of our suicide prevention programme.

With the decriminalisation of attempted suicide, I hope that Government agencies will not trivialise the act of attempted suicide especially if the Police are no longer involved or are playing a minor role. I hope more resources, not less, will be channelled to help those who attempted suicide. More resources in terms of counselling to help the victim and victim’s families. More resources in terms of in-depth study on the causes of attempted suicide and suicide. It is through this approach that we can better preserve the sanctity of life.

Perhaps we could look at what the Koreans have done. Korea has one of the highest suicide rates in the world and the highest among the OECD countries. What the South Korean government did was to conduct an extensive study on 70,000 people who committed suicide from 2012 to 2016 to establish a National Surveillance System on Suicide Trend to analyse patterns and statistics on the causes of suicide and who is more likely to attempt suicide.

It built strong local networks by educating medical and social workers on the ground, so they can immediately respond to those thinking of taking their own life. It also strengthened depression tests to identify those who might be at risk .

We can take a leaf from Korea’s experience. At the minimum, I suggest that we should mandate those who attempted suicide to go for counselling or treatment. For this to work, our anti-suicide effort needs to be an inter-Ministry collaboration, involving the Police, MSF and other stakeholders.

Another area we have to be concerned with is teenage suicide. This is particularly problematic because the youths are shockingly vulnerable. Suicide is the leading cause of death for those aged between 10 and 29 in Singapore. These youths and teens are increasingly at risk of self-harm due to bad influences through social media and challenges. Such dark challenges could disguise as Momo Challenge, Blue Whale Challenge or hashtag #kys, that is, "kill yourself". When the youths feel stressed, they can also easily go online to search for methods on how to kill themselves.

Thus, I hope that even with the decriminalisation of attempted suicide, the Police should not wash their hands completely. Whenever there is such self-harm reported, the Police should still be alerted to rule out any abetment of suicide. The Police can still be the referral agent to mandate Singaporeans who have attempted suicide to seek help.

Next, section 323: voluntarily causing hurt. The new section 323A fills in the gap between hurt and causing grievous hurt with intention. The Bill also enhance the punishment when hurt is inflicted on domestic workers, vulnerable persons and persons less than 14 years old. This is timely, appropriate and necessary.

However, there is still a gulf between how the Police handle voluntarily causing hurt cases and that of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 is a non-seizeable offence. There are many injuries which do not fall under "grievous hurt". Grievous hurt relates to very serious injuries such as fracture, blindness and other permanent disability. Very often, "hurt" can be serious resulting in profuse bleeding, hospitalisation or a few days of medical leave. Yet, it is still not serious enough to be classified as grievous hurt and the offence is not seizable.

The problem of non-seizable offence is that the Police cannot make any arrest without a warrant. The victim of voluntarily causing hurt has to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint with the court. This is an onerous administrative process costing $20 and requires the victim to lodge the complaint personally in court. He also has to buy a medical report from hospital or clinic to state how he has been hurt. This whole process is obviously a deterrent. Only when the victim of voluntarily causing hurt may a Magistrate complaint that the Police will be directed by the Magistrate to investigate. Hence, many perpetrators, many persons who try to hurt other people, get away quite easily.

In UK, you can get arrested for committing such offences. Common Assault, which includes pushing, slapping or merely spitting at people. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of six months in prison. Actual bodily harm, which is a step up, constitutes actual physical harm which does not need to be serious. Actual bodily harm include bruises, scratches and bite marks and the offence carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

I would like to ask the Minister, how many cases of section 323 were reported in 2018? How many cases were investigated by the Police due to Magistrate's complaint? How many cases were investigated by the Police without a complaint to the Magistrate? How many cases were eventually prosecuted in court?

One extreme is to follow the UK's example of making "voluntarily causing hurt" to be a seizable offence. I do not think the Police are ready for this. I would like to propose somewhere in between.

I would like to propose that the Minister consider requesting the Police to initiate investigation for all cases of "voluntarily causing hurt" that fall under the following categories: (a) road bully, that is, assault arising from dispute of a car accident or a near miss car accident; (b) assault by a customer on customer service staff, be it a waiter, a waitress, a sales person in a departmental store, a customer service officer of a telco or cabbies; and (c) assault resulting in victim suffering an injury that needs more than one day of medical leave to recuperate.

In the first place, there is no good reason for a person to assault another without provocation. Worse still, a customer service staff should not be assaulted by the very customer he or she is trying to serve. If the Police can initiate investigation for such assault cases without the need for the victim to lodge a Magistrate's complaint, it will go a long way to deter such violent act and bring justice to the victim in a fast, decisive and appropriate manner.

At this juncture, I will like to declare my interest as the CEO of ComfortDelGro Taxi Business before I continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In 2018, there were 40 taxi drivers who were beaten up by their passengers. These were classified as causing hurt and not causing grievous hurt. The Police did not necessarily investigate unless the victim spent money and time to go to the Magistrate Court to raise a complaint. Otherwise, they would not get any help. So, out of these 40 incidents, only four cases were finally prosecuted in Court. The majority of the victims could only look at the passengers going scot-free.

Currently, there is a huge difference between "voluntary causing hurt" and "voluntary causing grievous hurt". The definition of "grievous hurt" includes serious injuries like fractures or blindness. Even if the victim was badly beaten up and was hospitalised for a few days, he may not be considered as suffering from grievous hurt and the incident may not be investigated. If he wants some form of justice, he has to pay for a medical report of his medical examination, take leave and pay another $20 to lodge a complaint at the Magistrate Court. Only then will the Police investigate. All these take time and money, so it does not appear to be fair to the victims.

Therefore, I would like to suggest to the Minister that the Police should proactively investigate incidences of "voluntary causing hurt" under certain circumstances, even though the victim was not deemed to have suffered grievous hurt. For example, if the injury is serious enough to warrant more than one day of medical leave to recover, or if a customer beats up service personnel, the Police can investigate immediately and charge the perpetrators in court.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will like to continue my speech in English. It is good that we are finally repealing the marital immunity for rape, following the practice of other countries such as UK, US and Australia.

We want to protect all women from sexual abuse especially within the confines of their marriage where they are most vulnerable and may find it difficult to say "no". The amendment empowers them to step forward because a law has been broken.

However, we do have to be careful to guard against false allegations of rape in instances where a married couple is not yet divorced, but the marriage has already broken down and the woman may want to "cry wolf" to fulfil a personal agenda.

Either that, or it could be a difference in interpretation. Using another context, there have been cases of women who claim that they were raped, but the men said that it was consensual sex. Such charges are inherently based on "he says, she says", whereby it is quite impossible to obtain good evidence.

It is challenging to prove a lack of consent in marital rape, due to the intimacy associated with marriage and the fluid nature of consent. Some even asked if a husband is supposed to get consent from the wife every time they have sexual relationship. A wife who consented may later retract it, in the heat of subsequent arguments.

While it is morally right to protect women from abusive husbands who force themselves on their wives, I will like to ask the Minister what additional safeguards besides enhancing the punishment of providing false statement, if any, the Police will take to prevent and deter such false allegations? Will no signs of physical injury be sufficient to prove a false allegation of marital rape? I hope the Minister can provide us with more insight.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the Criminal Law Review Bill is timely. I would like to thank MHA and those who are involved in the Penal Code Review Committee and the public for their valuable contributions in making sweeping changes to update our Penal Code.

6.30 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, this review of the Penal Code is timely and addresses many of the evolving societal concerns and new crime trends that warrant enforcement. For example, the repeal for the immunity for marital rape restores dignity to women who suffered but were not accorded due justice. Decriminalising attempted suicide while ensuring similar powers to require treatment marks a good balance between legislative powers and rehabilitation. I remember rather vividly, as a young Police officer, I had to serve a warning to a young lady, paralysed from waist down, whose injuries were as a result of a failed suicide attempt. It felt unnecessary and discomforting then.

Similarly, legislation against voyeuristic activities and revenge pornography reflects the tighter legislation needed for the digital age. Very frequently, our aged laws are not able to protect victims as technology progresses much faster than legislation. Our law enforcement officers are often left with a patchwork of legislation across different statutes, stewing in their frustration to restore justice. Left unaddressed, the digital world is no different from a crime-ridden ghetto where self-branded vigilantes prevailed and whose very inhabitants in this ghetto are also intimidated by these self-branded cops. This set of Penal Code amendments will restore order and justice for many victims.

Technological advancements meant that voyeurs are having their field days. Armed with advanced zoom cameras, smartphones and insidious spying instruments, voyeurs make the world a very unsafe place, especially for women. Not only do they not stop at filming or taking photos of very private moments, but they go on to upload and distribute on the Internet. This is deplorable. I support this amendment.

At the same time, can I clarify with the Minister that victims can still have their cases investigated if the videos were distributed prior to the passing of the law but still found on different websites after the passing of this law. Would the Police have the powers to compel the owners of these sites to remove such voyeuristic materials? In addition, would private investigators also be prevented from taking such private videos even though it is presumably required in the course of their work?

As part of the amendments, the Bill also seeks to address the broad adverse impact from computer trading on the financial systems. Because of the speed of trades, malicious and rogue traders can make a lot of money in a short span of time. They can also cause lasting damage and collapse financial systems. Specifically, MHA has introduced section 424A and section 424B to tackle situations, such as the London Whale case involving J P Morgan or the Manipulation of the LIBOR in 2012 involving multiple banks. These amendments are important because of the growing number of financial fraud cases and the sophistication of the rogue traders. While I support the new sections to combat financial fraud, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.

Under the new section 424A, the penalty of imprisonment up to 20 years is twice as heavy as the current section 420 offence of cheating. The latter requires that there must be wrongful loss or that there is a clear victim but not the new section. While I note the need for a strong deterrence, can the Minister clarify why no victim is required as compared to the existing cheating offences?

I would also like to seek the Minister's clarification on the following. First, why is this new section needed instead of strengthening, for example, the Securities and Futures Act (Chapter 289)? Second, the need for strong deterrence for financial manipulation is abundantly clear – the immense financial windfall breeds greed and might destabilise financial systems. Noting that the penalty is heavy compared to existing cheating offences, how is our regime compared with those of foreign legislation? Were there previous cases in Singapore in recent years where we were unable to prosecute the perpetrator because there was no equivalent of a section 424A?

According to section 424A(2), the new section 424A also does not require any of the three sub-sections, namely, section 424A(1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c) to be material for the offence to be made out. Because the sub-sections need not have to be material and presumably more situations might be investigated under section 424A, under what circumstances does MHA envisage that such a piece of legislation would be used? Third, what is the likely impact on the compliance requirements of our financial institutions upon the passing of this law?

Notwithstanding the above clarifications, I believe that this enhanced Penal Code will empower our law enforcers to protect us better. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.36 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the sweeping changes introduced by this Bill to ensure that our criminal laws and regime are well-placed to tackle new crime trends and are aligned with societal norms of our times.

I would like to start by commending the Government's decision to provide for a longer three-month period between the First and Second readings of the Bill. This allows both parliamentarians and the public to better understand and seek clarifications on such a crucial and comprehensive Bill. I hope that this practice would be similarly adopted for other Bills which are equally important and extensive. I would also like to commend the progressive reforms this Bill introduces.

Another applaudable aspect of this Bill is the Penal Code Review Committee's extensive efforts to obtain public input in this review. More than 700 stakeholders participated in the engagement sessions and more than 60 individuals and organisations provided written feedback. The Committee included leading practitioners and thought leaders from academia and the private and public sectors.

To further strengthen this commendable effort at engaging the public, would the Government also consider including civil society groups on future review committees for any legislation? Civil society voices could have been especially value-adding and beneficial to the review process, given that many of these groups provide direct services and have expertise in the different issue areas subjected to review. In fact, these groups may have more experience dealing with certain groups of victims that avoid the authorities or are less inclined to report crimes and can provide valuable insights on these blind spots. I hope that it will become a standard practice for civil society to be included in committees spearheading legislative review rather than just at the consultation stage.

Next, the Bill takes the progressive step of abolishing the offence of attempted suicide. This recognises that suicide attempts stem from deep-seated issues and a punitive approach may not be appropriate or sufficient in addressing them.

Beyond legislative reform, we can go further in addressing the needs of those who attempt suicide by ensuring that the authorities have the skills and resources to respond appropriately when these cases arise. Police officers are deployed when an attempted suicide case is reported. Police officers are trained in responding to emergency situations, but may not have sufficient training in handling the complex socio-emotional issues often associated with attempted suicide cases. There is considerable value in having trained professionals who can be at the scene to do any assessment on mental health or provide psychological interventions where necessary. Similar trials have been conducted in the United Kingdom.

I have four recommendations to make here.

First, will the Ministry look into improving the quality of response to attempted suicide by setting up a "specialist team with psychological first-aid training" that can be deployed when attempted suicide is reported?

Second, given that it may take time to train a specialist team, will the Minister consider deploying social workers, together with Police officers, when responding to attempted suicide cases? This would help ensure that there are experts on the scene who will be able to handle all aspects of the situation better.

Third, will the Ministry consider making it mandatory for frontline Police officers to undergo psychological first-aid training? This will ensure that the process is not as distressing for people who attempt suicide.

Finally, will the Ministry look into expanding the functions under the existing MyResponder app by SCDF for responding to attempted suicide cases? The MyResponder app works by notifying Community First Responders, who are members of the public trained in CPR or AED procedures, of nearby fire and medical cases. The app could similarly notify trained social workers or counsellors who are available and in close proximity to the scene of attempted suicide cases so that they can assist the Police with negotiation efforts.

Next, the Bill repeals the marital immunity for rape, something which I and many Members of this House have spoken up about and which had been strongly supported by members of the public and representatives from the religious, legal and social sectors during the public consultation process. Rape is wrong in any context.

Can the Minister confirm if marital immunity for rape is completely removed? Currently, section 376A penalises acts of sexual penetration against minors under the age of 16 but does not apply where there is spousal consent. Similarly, section 375(1) provides that penile-vaginal penetration of a girl under the age of 14 is rape but does not apply when there is spousal consent. The position is the same under the new section 375(1A) for oral or anal penetration.

Section 376A(5) states that it is not an offence for a man to penetrate his wife if his wife is 13 years old and above. This means that it is possible for a child between 13 and 16 years old who is in a marriage to give spousal consent to sex even though it would otherwise be considered as rape. Sir, the age of the child should be the only factor here and not whether she is married to the man.

One other positive aspect I would like to highlight is the raising of the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) from seven years old to 10 years of age, where children below this threshold are considered incapable of crime. While this is a step in the right direction, would the Government consider further raising this minimum age to 12 years old, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)? Paragraph 32 of the CRC recommends that states increase the MARC to the age of 12 years old.

Some have argued that logical thinking and problem solving skills only develop between 11 to 15 years old. Some also suggest that intellectual abilities reach adult levels at only 17 years old. Children with underdeveloped logical thinking, problem solving and intellectual abilities are more likely to exhibit risky and potentially criminal behaviour.

While this change puts us on par with the laws in England and Hong Kong, Sir, I believe that Singapore could benefit from setting a positive precedence for other countries by meeting the internationally acceptable standard or level of 12 years old. Sir, notwithstanding my above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

6.42 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. These changes are wide-ranging and welcomed. Singapore’s Penal Code was enacted in 1871, a legacy of the colonial era. It started as a codification of the criminal law for easy administration by Colonial officials in far out territories, many of whom would not be lawyers.

While criminal law in England has not been codified in a single bill, the codification of the criminal law in the Penal Code has always been intended for the criminal law to be easily understood by a wider audience. Even a layperson reading the Penal Code would find the law clearly stated and helpful illustrations provided on how the law was to be applied. This is unlike other pieces of legislation.

Of course, the Penal Code has undergone extensive changes over the last century and a half and this latest set brings the Penal Code up to date with many of the latest developments in crime trends. It also makes important changes to further protect vulnerable victims. In making these changes, the Penal Code has retained the easy-to-understand drafting style that clearly sets out the offences and penalties involved as well as helpful illustrations. While the Penal Code itself is long, each of the offences is clearly set out and organised and a layperson should be able to understand the charges against him when charged for any of these offences.

In relation to vulnerable persons, this Bill makes provision for greater penalties for offences against the following: domestic workers; vulnerable persons; persons below 14 years; people in intimate relationships; people in close relationships; and "intimate relationships" refers to partners, sexual or not, and "close relationships" include broader family.

These are important changes that recognise special vulnerability in these relationships. All involve situations where one person is likely to be dependent on another or in a position of special trust with that person. And the abuse of that special position by committing a crime, therefore, fully justifies a sterner penalty and sends the right signal.

On a related note, though in a different part of the Bill, the marital immunity to rape has also been abolished. This was a point that I and others in this House had raised on previous occasions. It has always been in my view a quirk of the law when it was argued a man could not rape his wife even if she did not consent to having sex with him.

Some of the reports of husbands abusing wives are particularly heinous, and while they may have involved sex forced through violence, the perpetrator could not be charged for rape but would often be charged with a lesser charge for the related violence. This was usually unsatisfactory for the victims. This amendment addresses this matter.

There is also a series of offences that seem to be aimed at mischief that can have serious consequences. This includes making false reports of dangerous objects, such as declaring there is a bomb on the train when you know there is not one, causing or contributing to serious fire and this seems clearly to capture cigarette butts thrown down rubbish chutes that may cause fires. There is also criminalisation of negligence in respect of things like machineries tearing down buildings and even dangerous animals, which is fair because this makes it clear that people who have responsibility doing these tasks should take additional care.

I also welcome the changes to the Code in relation to crimes that have become particularly damaging in the Internet age. These include specific offences in relation to voyeurism, the taking of intimate photos or videos of a person without their knowledge, possession of the same, or even gaining access to it. These are broad-ranging powers which criminalise not only the obtaining of such information but also those who gain access to it.

Child pornography is another area that receives special legislative attention, with a wide range of offences covering those who exploit children to provide the material, those who profit from it or distribute it and those who access it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Is a broad-ranging Bill that thoughtfully covers emerging areas in crime and also provides greater protection of vulnerable people. I wholeheartedly support this reform and thank the Committee members for their hard work in putting these proposals together.

6.47 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken. Let me address the points that have been raised by Members.

Members spoke positively about the amendments relating to vulnerable victims. Members spoke eloquently and passionately about the need to protect the vulnerable. Victims like Annie Ee and Daniel Nasser were mentioned in many of the Members' speeches. No words can express the sorrow their families went through. We hope that the new laws protecting vulnerable victims will help to deter such cases from occurring.

Ms Rahayu asked about the difference between "vulnerable person" in the Bill and "vulnerable adult" in the Vulnerable Adults Act (VAA). The VAA provides powers to the State to take intrusive measures, such as removal of the vulnerable adult from their living conditions. Hence, a narrow definition of "vulnerable adults" was adopted in the VAA. This is to strike a balance between respecting individual autonomy and protecting those in need of help using intrusive protective measures. Those that do not meet the high threshold in the VAA can and have been helped in other ways.

The PCRC was of the view that the definition in the VAA was too narrow for the purposes of the Penal Code and it recommended for "vulnerable persons" in the Penal Code to be wider to cover more persons. This sends a strong deterrent signal and can potentially reduce the need to resort to intrusive remedial measures as envisaged in the VAA. The VAA was only recently passed. We should give it time and MSF will keep a close watch to ensure the interests of the vulnerable in the community are looked after and the balance appropriately struck.

Ms Rahayu and Mr Melvin Yong spoke about the proposed section 304 offence, and whether persons who are also suffering from abuse might be prosecuted for not taking action. The provision provides that a person is not guilty of an offence under section 304C if she could not have been expected in her circumstances to take steps to protect the victim from the significant risk of grievous hurt. We have also provided that such circumstances include her past or present experiences of abuse as a result of an unlawful act by any member of the same household as her.

Ms Rahayu also asked about the differences between the new sections 335A and 304C. The bases for the introduction of these offences are quite different. The offences of "failure to protect" has been proposed to cover persons who owe these vulnerable victims a duty of care. It reflects society's view that these people are responsible for the safety and well-being of the vulnerable victims in their care, custody or control. The offence of "causing or allowing death" applies to members of the same household as, and who have frequent contact with, the victim. This offence was introduced to overcome an evidential difficulty where two accused persons who have the exclusive opportunity to harm the vulnerable victim deny any ill-treatment of the victim.

Ms Anthea Ong and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about conditions under which the Courts may apply enhanced penalties for the offences against vulnerable victims. The enhanced penalties allow the Courts to punish offenders more severely if they prey on the vulnerabilities of certain persons. If the vulnerability did not make the person more susceptible to the offence, the offender will be subjected to punishment but not enhanced punishment. A person with a physical disability, for instance, may not necessarily be vulnerable, say, in respect of a white collar crime like fraud. There has to be a link between the vulnerability and the offence for enhanced punishments to apply.

Ms Irene Quay and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah made suggestions to improve the reporting and detection of domestic violence. Domestic abuse should, in the first instance, be reported to the Police. Police are trained to deal with such cases and have the legal powers to intervene quickly to stop any imminent or on-going abuse. Police also work with MSF to ensure that the victim receives care and, if required, will physically separate the victim and the assailant. MSF will consider the Members' suggestions. As Ms Quay acknowledged, much has already been done by MSF.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked how the amendments relating to abuse and neglect of vulnerable victims interact with decisions associated with palliative care. The Bill does not affect bona fide palliative arrangements. The Bill, for example, at section 304C, introduces obligations on persons in the household who have frequent contact with the victim and who are aware of a significant risk of grievous hurt being caused to the victim to take steps which could reasonably have been expected of such persons to take, to protect the victim from the significant risk. This involves a fact-sensitive exercise.

Mr Patrick Tay and Er Dr Lee spoke about rehabilitation of offenders in Prisons. Psychiatric intervention will be provided to selected offenders where necessary and feasible. Prisons' programmes also include psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes and work programmes. Mr Tay suggested that psychiatric treatment or psychological counselling be mandatory for sexual predators after the completion of their sentence. We will consider this suggestion. Mr Tay will be aware that offenders who are subject to the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) for certain serious sexual offences are required to undergo community supervision and must comply with conditions, such as counselling and case management.

Mr Melvin Yong spoke about the impact of the amendments on Prisons' resources. The Ministry will monitor the impact of the amendments on Prisons and continue to ensure that Prisons will be adequately staffed and resourced.

Members had a discussion earlier about the possibility of certain Penal Code offences being amended by Schedule. In general, Parliament should have oversight of criminal offences of general application, such as those in the Penal Code. There is agreement that we do not retrospectively make acts criminal. On section 409, we acted to reform section 409 as quickly as practicable, considering the need to consult the relevant stakeholders. I believe that the amendment has benefited from parliamentary scrutiny. In the case of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is a specialised legislation and the Schedule lists classes of substances. If we only list specific molecules, the peddlers will change one of many of the component molecules. So, there is, in that case, a particular operational context.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah spoke about minors dating adults and of dating websites. We share Er Dr Lee's concerns and our response is multi-pronged. The amendments today will deal with sexual exploitation of minors by adults. We want to prevent predatory conduct by adults against minors. We have amended the sexual grooming offences. We have also introduced a sexual communication offence to deal with sexting between an adult and a child. These address grooming behaviour upstream. We will closely monitor and take action against the users of dating websites or social media sites if they exploit young persons.

Mr Alex Yam spoke on criminalising all forms of child abuse material. The distribution and sale of fictional child abuse material are criminalised as "obscene material" in the Penal Code and will be subject to enhanced penalties. The current maximum penalty is three months and it will be enhanced to two years. We thank Mr Alex Yam for drawing our attention to the international developments and we will monitor the situation closely.

Er Dr Lee spoke about cases where parents have clearly ignored sexual abuse of their children. She asked about abettors and those who repeatedly witness abuse but do nothing. The amendments criminalise the failure of caregivers to protect children from ill-treatment, which includes the subjecting of the child to sexual abuse. Where death is caused to the child or young person, the maximum imprisonment term has been increased from seven to 14 years. Where death is not caused, the maximum imprisonment term has been increased from four to eight years.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the CYPA amendments, whether they will be brought into effect at the same time that MSF raises the proposed definition of "young person" to 18. We will try to see whether we can have the changes take effect at the same time or, if that is not possible, as soon as practicable.

Members supported the introduction of the new offence of voyeurism and distribution of intimate images. Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the impact of the new offences of voyeurism and distribution of intimate images on private investigators, persons who report crimes, or caregivers. There are defences where the recordings are for legitimate purposes. Specific requirements apply to qualify for this defence. Among others, the act has to be done without malice, with reasonable cause and the image or recording is used for contemplated or pending Court proceedings and is not kept longer than necessary or required.

Mr Desmond Choo sought a clarification on whether cases which involved the distribution of videos prior to these amendments coming into force would be investigated under the new offences. They would, if the distribution takes place after the provisions take effect. If their offending acts occurred before the new laws are in force, they would be dealt with under prevailing laws.

Mr Tay also suggested that the Courts be allowed to make orders which essentially involve the deletion of the offending images or recordings. The Courts can order the disposal of any property which has been used in the commission of an offence. The CPC was amended last year to specifically allow an order for the deletion of data on a computer or mobile phone where the data was the subject of an offence.

Mr Tay also spoke on dealing with the source of the offending images. The source of the images will be identified through Police investigations and the Police will do its best to track the source. Those in possession of the images have to cooperate in investigations to provide information on the originators of such material.

Mr Desmond Choo and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah spoke about websites that carry prohibited material. We take a strong stand against sites that host prohibited material. IMDA can issue directions to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to such websites.

Internet content providers (ICPs) include web-hosting services, and they are all class-licensed under the Broadcasting Act. So, they are required to comply with the Internet Code of Practice and ensure that prohibited material is not hosted on their websites. If such websites are verified to be hosted in Singapore, the IMDA can direct the ICPs to take down the content and suspend or cancel the class licences of the ICPs.

I thank Members for their support for the repeal of marital immunity for rape. Mr Louis Ng asked about the extent of the repeal of marital immunity. The answer is all non-consensual sex with one’s spouse will be an offence. His question also discusses sex within marriage involving minors. It is not tenable to completely ban minor marriages today. A majority of countries around the world share the same approach. The legal age of marriage is set at 18 years of age. We allow minors in Singapore to enter into marriage with special approval, but these marriages are extremely rare and robust safeguards are in place.

Members raised concerns relating to proof. I make two points in response.

First, all cases of alleged rape – within or outside of marriage – are subject to the same level of evidential rigour during investigation and prosecution. Police officers at the Serious Sexual Crime Branch are trained to deal with complex issues of evidence and proof.

Second, there are existing offences in the Penal Code on false reporting and we are enhancing penalties for false reporting.

I want to thank Members for their support for the amendments to sections 375 on rape, 376 on sexual assault involving penetration, and 509 on insult of modesty.

Ms Anthea Ong supported the expanded legal definition of rape and spoke passionately about the need to protect all victims of sexual assault, regardless of gender. We agree.

Ms Anthea Ong spoke about a positive definition of “consent” in the Penal Code.

Instituting a new positive definition of consent could generate further uncertainty in view of the fairly settled law in this instance. The PCRC studied this issue and found that the experience of England and Wales in having a positive statutory definition does not help in clarifying the scope of consent.

Ms Ong has suggested greater public awareness about the contours of consent. We will work with agencies and organisations to improve on public education in this area.

Members spoke on the repeal of attempted suicide. I was particularly struck by Mr Desmond Choo’s first-hand account from his days as a Police officer where he had to serve a warning to a semi-paralysed lady who had attempted suicide. He said "it felt unnecessary and discomforting". With today’s amendments, such warnings will no longer be required.

Mr de Souza set out his concerns regarding the decriminalisation of attempted suicide. Let me be clear. The abetment of attempted suicide is still a crime. The amendments actually enhance the penalties for abetment of attempted suicide significantly. The amendments multiply the maximum punishment by 10 times to 10 years’ imprisonment, and for certain other categories. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide remain illegal.

Mr Louis Ng spoke about support professionals that could assist police when intervening in attempted suicide cases. The SPF’s Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) is trained to handle cases like suicide attempts. Comprising police officers and psychologists, they are trained in negotiation tactics and suicide intervention. Officers are also trained to ensure their own safety. Social workers, for instance, at SOS and SSOs, can be involved later after the Police have ensured the safety of various parties. We will look into Mr Ng’s suggestion on psychological first aid training.

On the use of MyResponder, interventions involving attempted suicide are different from CPR and AED procedures. We want to avoid a situation where a well-meaning member of the public reacting to the notification exacerbates the situation, or puts himself in a position of danger.

Mr Murali spoke about Police intervention and treatment. The safeguards that were previously there – Police intervention, SCDF intervention – will still be there, post-decriminalisation. Where appropriate, Police can still exercise powers under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act. There will still be mental health treatment for appropriate cases. But, as Ms Anthea Ong highlighted, not all cases involve mental illness. For others, counselling or family support may be needed. The Government will continue to maintain statistics, taking into account inputs from the various agencies which respond to suicide attempts.

Some have raised questions on whether decriminalisation will impact reporting by the public. This should not be the case. Our experience informs us that callers who call emergency lines to report attempts do not call to report a crime. They call for help, out of concern for the safety of the person attempting suicide and others in the vicinity of the person.

Mr de Souza asked for a study to be conducted following the decriminalisation. We will monitor the situation post-amendment but we must remember that suicide attempts happen for various reasons. An increase or decrease in the number of attempts may not be attributable to criminalisation or decriminalisation.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for statistics on reports for attempted suicide. The number has been steady in the last five years and the average annual number of reports is 1,210.

The medical literature suggests that there are multiple factors that affect suicide risk, ranging from barriers to seeking help, to economic downturns, to personal risk factors. For example, mental health disorders, substance abuse, financial problems and many others.

Mr Ang Wei Neng suggested that there be mandatory counselling for those who attempt suicide. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) operates a 24-hour hotline to counsel persons in distress. The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) operates a 24-hour Mental Health Helpline to assess and triage cases and activate home visit teams if necessary. To make it mandatory means that we will have to enforce the need to go for counselling, and are likely to do so on pain of punishment. Again, we are trying to move away, in this area, from criminalisation to help. So, we should tread carefully in this aspect.

Mr Louis Ng spoke about the MACR and whether it could be raised to the age of 12 years. There is currently no scientific consensus on what the MACR should be. So, we looked at factors such as prevailing criminal activity among the various age groups. We assessed that there would not be a significant threat to public safety to raise the MACR to 10 years of age. Persons of 10 years of age or above and under 12, can still avail themselves of a defence if they can show that they have not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct. We think this strikes the right balance.

Mr Melvin Yong spoke about his concerns regarding the raising of the MACR. I hear the Member’s concerns, and assure him that the raising of the MACR will only come into force when the mechanism to address offending behaviour in children below the MACR is put in place. The framework will ensure that children below the MACR will still have their behaviour addressed.

I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her support for the introduction of section 323A and the raising of the maximum sentence for section 323.

Both Ms Lim and Mr Ang Wei Neng spoke about voluntarily causing hurt (VCH) and arrestability. We do take hurt offences seriously. All Penal Code offences committed against children under 14, vulnerable persons, and domestic workers, will be made arrestable, regardless of the arrestability of the underlying offence. This includes VCH against these vulnerable victims.

In addition, the expansion of the definition of “public servants” to include persons, such as those who conduct illegal parking enforcement on behalf of the Government, means that acts of hurt committed against a wider range of persons will be arrestable.

So, we are moving incrementally, to ensure that cases get the appropriate response and there is no inadvertent diversion of Police resources away from critical cases.

Ms Lim and Mr Ang asked about the various scenarios in which Police initiate investigations for VCH cases without any of Magistrate's complaint. These include: acts of VCH which cause serious injury which falls short of grievous hurt; acts of VCH involved in road rage; VCH cases involving secret society members; racially or religiously aggravated VCH cases and acts of VCH against public service workers such as taxi drivers, transport workers or nurses. We will continue to monitor the situation with regard to VCH and study the various suggestions. Post-amendment – we can assess if there is a need to create a more expedited framework for the resolution of other types of VCH cases and if this can be done without compromising due process or compromising the delivery of Police response to other more serious offences.

Mr Murali asked about the proposed revision to criminal conspiracy. There are no reported instances of the use of section 120A of the Penal Code against conspiracies to engage in non-criminal conduct. There is no strong policy reason or public imperative to keep it in the Penal Code. There is available recourse for such civil wrongs through the civil courts. The same approach is taken in the UK under the Criminal Law Act 1977, where criminal conspiracy is limited to agreements to commit offences.

The Member also spoke about criminal defamation. The assessment on criminal defamation is different. While there is civil recourse for defamation, the policy assessment is that there may be certain cases of defamation where criminal sanctions are required to reflect the seriousness with which society regards such conduct. It overlaps with a civil wrong, but so do other crimes such as theft and fraud. A policy decision has been made for these acts to be treated both as crimes and as civil wrongs.

Mr Murali has proposed moving the Penal Code offences relating to kidnapping or corruption to other specialised legislation. We will consider Mr Murali’s feedback, and will also ask CPIB to consider it as well. I should address one point though. The Member said there was an anomaly in sentencing; kidnapping in the Kidnapping Act is punishable by death but this was not the case in the Penal Code. The apparent inconsistency can actually be reconciled. The heavier penalties under the Kidnapping Act are due to the fact kidnapping for ransom is involved. Conversely, the kidnapping offence in the Penal Code encompasses a much broader range of conduct, including less serious conduct.

Mr Desmond Choo sought clarification on the need for an identifiable victim for the new fraud offence. The new offence of fraud does not require an identifiable victim. The LIBOR case is a clear example where dishonest gain can be made through the financial system without there being an identifiable victim or loss caused. It is very difficult to find a lay person who understands how LIBOR is calculated, given the arcane nature of the mechanism. Proving loss is also extremely difficult, because LIBOR is an inter-bank lending rate and it only impacts ordinary consumers indirectly, and the impact depends on the practices of each bank. For example, in setting fixed deposit interest rates linked to LIBOR. If it is clear that someone acted dishonestly to gain a benefit, he should be punished.

Mr Choo asked why this new section was required in lieu of strengthening the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). The SFA regulates specific financial transactions and products, whereas the fraud offence will cover any kind of dishonest or fraudulent behaviour for gain. The new fraud offence puts a stop to the game of "catch-up" with actors who have a strong financial interest in finding loopholes in regulation. So, this law can be used against such actors.

Mr Choo also asked about how the regime compares with that of foreign jurisdictions. The proposed Fraud offence is adapted from the UK Fraud Act 2006. It has a heavier maximum punishment – 20 years’ imprisonment as opposed to 10 years’ in the UK – to account for the fact that a single count of fraud can encompass a single deceptive scheme which affects multiple victims. The higher maximum punishment is to ensure that complex, large-scale frauds receive the appropriate sentence.

Mr Choo also asked about the lack of a materiality requirement in the new offence. The purpose of the new fraud offence is to focus on the culpability of the offender and not the effect it may have had on the victim. Requiring proof of materiality requires a shift of focus back to the victim and how material they found the falsehood, and this is inconsistent with the purpose of the new fraud offence.

Mr de Souza spoke about presumptive minimum sentences. The amendments set out the provisions which presumptive minimum sentences apply to. They include provisions in laws outside the Penal Code, including certain offences under the Passport Act, the Fisheries Act and the Immigration Act. But the listed offences do not include provisions in the MDA. The list of offences presumptive minimum sentences will be applied to is tightly scoped. We are not introducing a general doctrine that a mandatory minimum sentence should be replaced by a presumptive minimum sentence.

Finally, let me discuss an issue Members have raised – education, awareness raising and social norms. Members have raised important and valid points. We agree that public education and awareness raising is vital; and we know that the amendments today need to be known beyond this House. We will continue to work on this together with Members and community partners. Yes, the law has its limits. The law can shape social norms, but it is only one factor. The legal direction is clear. Families, schools, media and the wider community, including NGOs, also play important roles in shaping norms, and we look forward to working together.

I believe I have responded to major concerns raised by Members. I thank Members for their support on this important Bill. The amendments are timely, comprehensive and necessary. I thank members of the Penal Code Review Committee for its comprehensive report leading to this Bill and all who shared their views on the Bill.

As Mr de Souza had said, this is a monumental Bill and a law that has been with us for close to 150 years. The task of this generation is to update it, strengthen it and make it relevant to today’s circumstances. This is an opportunity for this House to register our strongest condemnation against acts that harm the most vulnerable among us. Persons like Annie Ee, Cindy, Daniel Nasser. It is our duty to protect our society against predators like Joshua Robinson and ensure that they get the justice they deserve. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

7.17 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Just a point of clarification. In my speech, I asked the Ministry, there is a provision where the definition of public servant, where the Police engage law enforcement officers on the ground, such as private security officers or auxiliary police officers, they are treated as public servants if they are carrying out law enforcement, crowd control duties and so on. So, would private security officers be treated as public servants in this aspect?

Mr Amrin Amin: Under the provision, it would depend on the functions that they perform. The Act has got specific requirements. So, if they perform a function as set out in the Act, yes, they will be covered and they will be entitled to the protection accorded to public servants.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Just two points of clarification. First, I understand that, palliative care and care of that sort would not be constituted as "neglect relating to death". But, what about refusal to accept medical treatment or convey the vulnerable adult to medical treatment, when there might be some issue about the adult actually not wanting medical treatment in the first instance.

The second point is on the question I raised about whether there is a possibility, as part of the social norms of sexual offences, these offences are under-reported in Singapore. This has been the contention that Ms Baey and others have made. Would the Ministry consider studying this issue to determine whether it is a problem?

Mr Amrin Amin: On the issue of palliative arrangement, as I mentioned, it is a fact-sensitive exercise. The elements of the offence have to be made out, but certain indicators like the evidence of abuse and all that would have to be looked into. There will be police investigations and the Courts will have to weigh evidence and the Prosecution as well would have to look at the evidence to see whether there is any merit to the complaint. So, the intent of the Act, is not to go after bona fide palliative arrangements. I think that is as far as I could go but quite a lot of it is fact-sensitive.

On the issue of under-reporting, we are aware this is a global phenomenon. We have made changes to our various processes, including reporting processes and the provisions today as well. These show a clear trajectory that we will like to provide extended support to victims of sexual offences and we will do what we can. There will be various studies to see how we can extend our outreach and support people who are in such situations.

The Chairman: There are no other clarifications.

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 Amrin Amin].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 –

The Chairman: Clause 8. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are seven amendments to clause 8, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 7* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments 1 to 5 proposed in clause 8 are to clarify the objective formulation of “rashness”. This is in line with the common law as stated by the High Court in PP vv Hue An Li. Amendment 6 is to clarify that some offences may have some physical elements which are strict liability, and have no corresponding fault elements. Amendment 7 is to clarify the defence for a strict liability offence, which arises when the accused person shows that he exercised reasonable care in doing all the acts or omissions which are physical elements of the offence.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 8, lines 30 and 31: to leave out “, and that it is unreasonable to take that real risk,”.

(2) In page 8, line 32: after “circumstance”, to insert “, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk”.

(3) In page 9, lines 2 and 3: to leave out “and that it is unreasonable to take that real risk”.

(4) In page 9, line 3: to leave out “thing”, and insert “act”.

(5) In page 9, line 3: after “effect”, to insert “, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk”.

(6) In page 11, line 16: to leave out “that”, and insert “any”.

(7) In page 11, lines 19 and 20: to leave out “doing anything or omitting to do anything specified in the charge”, and insert “committing all the acts or omissions that are physical elements of the offence”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 –

The Chairman: Clause 15. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment is to make clear the legislative intent that enhanced penalties for offences committed against domestic workers apply only to employers, members of an employer’s household and employment agents who commit offences against their domestic workers.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 13, line 9: after “offence)”, to insert “that is committed against that domestic worker”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 27 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 –

The Chairman: Next amendment. Clause 28. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment is to make editorial amendments such that for an accused person to rely on a defence of unsoundness of mind, he must not know that what he is doing is wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons, and wrong as contrary to law.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 25, line 20: to leave out “or” where it first occurs, and insert “and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 33 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 –

The Chairman: I hope Members are following. There are amendments to clause 34. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are four amendments to clause 34, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 4* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments are to give effect to the legislative intention that inchoate abetments of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment be punishable with discretionary caning.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 33, line 18: to leave out “and”.

(2) In page 33: after line 18, to insert —

“(b) by inserting, immediately after the words “to fine” wherever they appear (including in the Illustration), the words “or to caning”;”.

(3) In page 33, line 21: to leave out “.”, and insert “; and”.

(4) In page 33: after line 21, to insert —

“(d) by deleting the words “to a fine” in the Illustration and substituting the words “to fine or to caning”.”.

The Chairman: No clarifications.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 to 37 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 –

The Chairman: For Members who are not following, please refer to the Notice of Amendments to Bill in the Order Paper Supplement. Clause 38. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments to clause 38, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 and 2* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The intent behind the amendment to section 121A is to remove the limbs of the offence that do not require the offender to commit any physical act or omission. These are colloquially known as “thought crimes”. While this was not proposed by the Penal Code Review Committee, the Government reviewed this, and is of the view that this should be amended to keep the law updated.

There is value in retaining section 121A, but we should limit its scope. In that regard, the Government proposes to remove the words “compasses, imagines, invents, devises or intends”, and replace them with “plans”. This will remove the “thought crime” limbs of the offence. The term “plans” refers to early preparatory acts which may fall short of the “substantial step” requirement for attempts or criminal conspiracy to be made out. This will allow for authorities to intervene at an earlier stage of planning than what is currently allowed under the law of “attempts” and “criminal conspiracy”. The death penalty will also be removed as a punishment option for this offence, and an imprisonment sentence of up to 20 years will be included as a sentencing option.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 35, line 25: to leave out “Amendment”, and insert “Repeal and re-enactment”.

(2) In page 35: to leave out after “is” in line 26 to end of line 28, and insert —

“repealed and the following section substituted therefor:

“Offences against the President’s person

121A. Whoever plans the death of or hurt to or unlawful imprisonment or restraint of the President, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to 20 years and shall, if he is not sentenced to imprisonment for life, also be liable to fine.”.”.

The Chairman: This is the part referred to by Mr Murali Pillai earlier on. There are no clarifications.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 –

The Chairman: Clause 39. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments to clause 39, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 and 2* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments to section 121B remove the “thought crime” limbs of the offence, by deleting the words “compasses, imagines, invents, devises or intends”, and replacing them with the modern term of “plans”.

There is value in retaining section 121B as amended. The term “plans” refers to early preparatory acts which may fall short of the “substantial step” requirement for attempts or criminal conspiracy to be made out. This will allow for authorities to intervene at an earlier stage of planning than what is currently allowed under the law of “attempts” and “criminal conspiracy”.

The death penalty will also be removed as a punishment option for this offence, and an imprisonment sentence of up to 20 years will be included as a sentencing option.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 35, line 29: to leave out “Amendment”, and insert “Repeal and re-enactment”.

(2) In page 35: to leave out after “is” in line 30 to end of line 31, and insert —

“repealed and the following section substituted therefor:

“Offences against authority

121B. Whoever plans the unlawful deprivation or deposition of the President from the sovereignty of Singapore, or the overawing by criminal force of the Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to 20 years and shall, if he is not sentenced to imprisonment for life, also be liable to fine.”.”.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a clarification for Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Why are there so many amendments. Is MHA rushing through the Bill?

Mr Amrin Amin: I thank Mr Low for the question. I think this is a very complex Bill, and as a result, there are some of these amendments and we want to be very careful about this. So some of these amendments needed to be made so as not to leave any doubts and cause problems later on. I apologise for the inconvenience and I think we can get through this quite quickly.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 40 to 79 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 –

The Chairman: Clause 80. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are four amendments to clause 80, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?"

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 4* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Amendments 1 and 3 clarify the meaning of "premeditation" to make clear that it refers to the fault elements of the accused person arising before the time of the offence. Amendment 2 makes an editorial amendment to correctly site the proviso that an offender cannot rely on the Exception of sudden fight if he knew or had reason to believe that the victim was acting in obedience to the law or was a public servant lawfully exercising his powers in Exception 4. Amendment 4 is an editorial amendment to clarify that for an accused person to rely on Exception 7 of Diminished Responsibility, he must not know that what he is doing is wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons, and wrong as contrary to law.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 58: to leave out after "intention" in line 2 to end of line 5, and insert —

", which was formed prior to the circumstances which gave rise to the act of private defence —

(a) to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or

(b) to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the way mentioned in section 300(d).";".

(2) In page 58, line 6: to leave out "3", and insert "4".

(3) In page 58: to leave out after "intention" in line 21 to end of line 24, and insert —

", which was formed prior to the circumstances constituting the sudden fight —

(a) to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or

(b) to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the way mentioned in section 300(d).".

(4) In page 59, line 28: after "or" where it first occurs, to insert "wrong".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 81 and 82 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 –

The Chairman: Clause 83. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are nine amendments to clause 83, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?"

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 9* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Amendments 1 to 4 provide that the scope of offenders covered by the new offence of "causing death by sustained abuse" should cover persons who have care, custody and control of a child or a vulnerable person, or an employer of the domestic worker, member of the employer's household, or the employment agent of a domestic worker. Amendments 5 to 9 provide that the scope of victims covered by the new offence of "causing or allowing death" includes domestic workers. The rationale for these provisions has been dealt with by Minister Shanmugam.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 60, line 12: to leave out "Whoever", and insert "A relevant person who".

(2) In page 60, line 18: to leave out "and", and insert ",".

(3) In page 60, line 18: after " "employment agent" ", to insert "and "member of the employer's household" ".

(4) In page 60, line 30: after "worker", to insert ", a member of the employer's household".

(5) In page 61, line 12: after "age", to insert ", domestic worker".

(6) In page 61, line 15: after "age", to insert ", a domestic worker".

(7) In page 62, line 27: to leave out "10 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 82".

(8) In page 62, lines 28 and 29: to leave out "or above 10 years of age but below 12 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 83".

(9) In page 63: to leave out lines 5 and 6, and insert —

"(d) "domestic worker" and "vulnerable person" have the meanings given by sections 73(4) and 74A(5), respectively; and".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 84 and 86 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 –

The Chairman: Clause 87. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment clarifies the Illustration to make clear that it is only possible to commit attempted culpable homicide with an intention to kill. This renders it consistent with all other attempt offences.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 65: to leave out after "amended" in line 7 to end of line 9, and insert —

"—

(a) by deleting the words "such intention or knowledge" and substituting the words "the intention to cause death"; and

(b) by inserting, immediately after the words "at Z" in the Illustration, the words "intending to kill Z".".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 88 and 103 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 –

The Chairman: Clause 104. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments to clause 104, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 and 2* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments make editorial amendments to replace references to persons below 10 years of age with references to the section numbers of the provisions in the Penal Code on the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. This is because the increased Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility will only come into force after the mechanism for the management of young children who exhibit offending behaviour is ready.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 71, line 8: to leave out "10 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 82".

(2) In page 71, lines 9 and 10: to leave out "or above 10 years of age but below 12 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 83".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 104, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 105 and 111 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112 –

The Chairman: Clause 112. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment makes editorial amendments to the list of offences relating to non-consensual sexual penetration which are excluded from the scope of section 376A.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 76: to leave out after "375(1)(a)" in line 11 to end of line 16, and insert ", 375(1)(b) read with section 375(3), 375(1A)(a), 375(1A)(b) read with section 375(3), 376(1)(a), 376(1)(b) read with section 376(4), 376(2) (if the victim B is of or above 14 years of age) or 376(2) (if the victim B is below 14 years of age) read with section 376(4).".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 and 116 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117 –

The Chairman: Clause 117. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are 12 amendments to clause 117, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 12* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments provide for extra-territorial application of the offences of sexual communication with minors and sexual activity or image in presence of minors.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 81, lines 18 and 19: to leave out "took place in or outside Singapore", and insert "originated in Singapore provided that either A or B was in Singapore at the time of such communication".

(2) In page 82, lines 17 and 18: to leave out "took place in or outside Singapore", and insert "originated in Singapore provided that either A or B was in Singapore at the time of such communication".

(3) In page 83, line 3: to leave out "and".

(4) In page 83: after line 3, to insert —

"(ii) when either A or B is or both are in Singapore; and".

(5) In page 83, line 16: to leave out "and".

(6) In page 83, line 18: to leave out ".", and insert "; and".

(7) In page 83: after line 18, to insert —

"(e) either A or B is or both are in Singapore.'.

(8) In page 84, line 11: to leave out "and".

(9) In page 84: after line 11, to insert —

"(ii) when either A or B is or both are in Singapore; and".

(10) In page 84, line 27: to leave out "and".

(11) In page 84, line 28: to leave out ".", and insert "; and".

(12) In page 84: after line 28, to insert —

"(f) either A or B is or both are in Singapore.".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 118 and 119 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120 –

The Chairman: Clause 120. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are eight amendments to clause 120, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 8* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Amendments 1, 7 and 8 insert a new provision to provide for extra-territorial application for the offences of producing child abuse material and procuring or using a child in the production of child abuse material. Amendments 2 and 3 are editorial in nature. Amendments 4 to 6 provide that using or involving a child in the production of child abuse material will include situations where a person who has care or custody of a minor under 16 allows the minor to be used for the production of such material.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 88, line 17: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".

(2) In page 89, lines 14 and 33: to leave out “with that intention”.

(3) In page 89, line 33: to leave out "A's", and insert "A".

(4) In page 95, line 10: after "used", to insert "or allows the person to be so used".

(5) In page 98, line 22: to leave out ", causes or procures".

(6) In page 98, line 24: after "material", to insert "or causes or procures B to be so used".

(7) In page 103, line 32: to leave out "".".

(8) In page 103: after line 32, to insert —

"Child abuse material offences outside or partially outside Singapore

377BO.—(1) Any person, being a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, who does, outside Singapore, any act that would, if done in Singapore, constitute an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3), shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be.

(2) To avoid doubt, any person (A) who does in Singapore, any act involving a person below 16 years of age (B) and B is outside Singapore, that would if B were in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, as the case may be.

(3) Any person who does outside Singapore, any act involving a person below 16 years of age (B) and B is in Singapore, that would if done in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, as the case may be.

(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply only where A is in a relationship that is exploitative of B.

(5) To avoid doubt, any person (A) who does in Singapore, any act involving a person who is of or above 16 but below 18 years of age (B) and B is outside Singapore, that would if B were in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be.

(6) Any person (A) who does outside Singapore, any act involving a person who is of or above 16 but below 18 years of age (B) and B is in Singapore, that would if done in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be.

(7) To avoid doubt, any person who does in Singapore an act which is a physical element of an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3) shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be, if all the fault elements and physical elements of the offence are proven even though other physical elements of the same offence occurred outside Singapore.

Illustrations

(a) A, a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, films in a foreign country a video recording of child abuse material involving a person below 16 years of age (B). B is in that foreign country during the filming. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH read with section 377BO(1).

(b) A, who is in Singapore, uses remote video facilities to film a video recording of child abuse material involving a person below 16 years of age (B). B is in a foreign country during the filming. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH read with section 377BO(2).

(c) A, who is in a foreign country and is not a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, uses remote video facilities to film a video recording of child abuse material involving a person below 16 years of age (B). B is in Singapore during the filming. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH read with section 377BO(3).

(d) A, who is in Singapore, uses computer software to alter and reproduce child abuse material which was not filmed in Singapore. The child abuse material is not stored in Singapore but in a computer server in a foreign country which A accesses through A’s computer in Singapore. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BH read with section 377BO(7).".".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 –

The Chairman: Clause 121. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are three amendments to clause 121, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 3* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. These amendments are editorial, and consequential to the insertion of a new provision relating to the extra-territorial application of the offences of producing child abuse material and using or involving a child in the production of child abuse material.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 104, line 5: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".

(2) In page 104, line 6: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".

(3) In page 106, line 5: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122 –

The Chairman: Clause 122. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment makes editorial amendments to the list of minor-specific offences in section 377D. If the accused person had previously been charged for these minor-specific offences, he cannot avail himself of the defence in section 377D.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 110, line 7: to leave out "375(1)(a), 375(1A)(b), 376(1), 376(2)", and insert '375(1)(b), 375(1A)(b), 376(1) (if the victim B is below 14 years of age), 376(2) (if the victim B is below 14 years of age)".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 122, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 123 to 137 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138 –

The Chairman: Clause 138. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment makes editorial amendments to ensure that similar definitions of “representation” apply for the offences of fraud introduced in sections 424A and 424B.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 121, line 18: after "section", to insert "and section 424B".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 139 to 166 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 167 –

The Chairman: Clause 167. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are four amendments to clause 167, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 4* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments are editorial amendments to provide clear examples of situations where a person has committed an offence of attempt, and to provide that for offences of attempts, mandatory minimum sentences for the underlying offence do not apply.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 134, line 11: to leave out "act or", and insert "person in such possession".

(2) In page 134, line 16: to leave out "act or", and insert "person mentioned in subsection (1)".

(3) In page 135, line 30: to leave out "subsection (1)", and insert “that subsection".

(4) In page 136, line 7: to leave out "(1)", and insert "(2)".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 167, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 168 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 169 –

The Chairman: Clause 169. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are five amendments to clause 169, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 5* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments provide for consequential amendments to the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code arising from the amendments made during the Committee Stage.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 142, lines 41 and 44: after "years", to insert " and fine'.

(2) In page 142, lines 43 and 46: after "years”, to insert ", and fine, or caning".

(3) In page 143, line 18: to leave out "items relating to sections 121 and 121B", and insert “item relating to section 121".

(4) In page 143: after line 18, to insert —

"(g) by deleting the word “Ditto” under the sixth column in the item relating to section 121A and substituting the words "Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 20 years, and fine";

(h) by inserting, immediately after the word "life," under the sixth column in the item relating to section 121B, the words "or imprisonment for 20 years,";".

(5) In page 148, line 35: after 'age', to insert ", domestic worker".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 169, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 170 to 173 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 174 –

The Chairman: Clause 174. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are three amendments to clause 174, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 3* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments provide that the lifting of marital privilege under section 124 of the Evidence Act will apply to the following situations:

(a) Child abuse offences committed against a person below 16 years old;

(b) All hurt offences committed against children. This is consistent with the coverage of domestic workers and vulnerable persons; and

(c) All attempts, abetments, and conspiracies to commit such specified offences.

This will ensure that spouses of an accused person can be required to give evidence in a trial of that accused person for sexual or violent offences committed against children.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 166, line 1: after "offence", to insert "committed against a person below 16 years of age".

(2) In page 166, line 2: after "offence", to insert "or an offence under Chapter XVI of the Penal Code (other than a sexual offence)".

(3) In page 166: after line 17, to insert —

"(e) an abetment of, a conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit any of the offences mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d);".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 174, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 175 to 191 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments* to be made will be made.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 33, line 19: to re-letter paragraph (b) as paragraph (c).

(2) In page 83, line 4: to renumber sub-paragraph (ii) as sub-paragraph (iii).

(3) In page 84, line 12: to renumber sub-paragraph (ii) as sub-paragraph (iii).

(4) In pages 143 to 161: to re-letter paragraphs (g) to (zzzn) as paragraphs (i) to (zzzp), respectively.

The Chairman: Before we read the Bill for the Third time, I just want to thank all Members for their patience.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.