Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.05 pm

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a joint Bill by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

Over the years, we have been making changes to the criminal justice system. I have set out some of these changes in a handout. Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 1?

Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Members can access this and other handouts I will be distributing later, through the MP@SGPARL app as well.

Members can see that since 2010, we have made several changes to improve our criminal justice system. The Bill today is a significant Bill. There are around 20 sets of proposed amendments. They cover law enforcement, criminal investigations, court processes and sentencing.

In my speech, I will cover two major aspects of the Bill. First, the new Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP) and the second is a new framework for conducting Forensic Medical Examinations (FMEs).

After my speech, two of my colleagues will be speaking. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will deal with the rest of the Bill, including changes related to Police powers to conduct searches and the criminal disclosure regime. Minister of State Sun Xueling will also deal with some of the main changes.

Sir, before going into the Bill, let me take a step back and reiterate our approach relating to criminal justice. Essentially, if you are guilty, you should face the penalty for the offence. If you are innocent, you should go free. The system should be robust and fair. There are two parts to it.

The first part, there has to be an effective framework of laws that deal with the crimes committed. And that means there must be a strong and effective law enforcement system and there must be a Judiciary which can apply the laws. The second part, the criminal justice process must be fair and civilised. That is the approach that has been taken by my predecessors and I have continued along the same path. The results are the safe and secure Singapore we have today.

Whenever we talk about criminal law, every country will say they are trying to find the right balance between the interests of society on the one hand and the individual's rights, on the other. But I think as we look around the world, there are serious questions as to whether the balance is being struck right.

In Singapore, we also try and strike that balance. There can be differences on whether we are getting the balance right and we do need to be continuously mindful about that. But that is our approach and that gives context to the changes we are making.

Let me now turn to deal with the first major aspect of the Bill that I will be touching on, the SEPP. What is it? Why are we having it? How will it work? What do we hope to achieve? I will also speak briefly about a related part of the Bill, on the Sentence for Public Protection (SPP).

First, what is the SEPP? In essence, it is a new type of sentence, which the Courts can impose. It will apply to offenders who are 21 and above, at the time of the commission of the offence. It will cover dangerous offenders who commit serious violent or sexual offences and provided there is an assessed risk that they may commit similar offences after they are released. The relevant offences will be set out in a new Schedule to the CPC. They will include culpable homicide, attempted murder, rape and sexual penetration of minors.

The SEPP is different from normal prison sentences under existing law. With normal prison sentences, offenders serve a fixed term of imprisonment. The Court imposes a sentence. The usual process is that the offenders are released earlier, after serving two-thirds of their sentence. That is called remission. Most prisoners get remission.

When released, they are released unconditionally.

The SEPP changes that. The Court will specify a term of imprisonment for the offender, based on the facts of the case. But the difference is that this is a minimum term. There will be no early release or remission. The Court will also say whether the offender is released and at the end of the minimum term, will be subject to a review. If he is assessed to pose a risk to others, when his term ends, he can be kept in custody beyond the minimum period. And if he is released, conditions can be imposed, until it is assessed that he is safe to be released.

I will say a little bit more about how the SEPP works later on. But, first, let me first explain why we are introducing it. Some people have asked is it because there has been an increase in serious violent and sexual crimes in Singapore? The answer is no, that is not the reason for the SEPP. We regularly review our laws. We study other countries. Some have similar sentences to the SEPP. We looked at them and decided that it made sense to have something similar.

In Singapore, as in other places, serious sexual and violent crimes do occur, except that our numbers are much, much lower. But people do get killed. They do get seriously hurt. And they do get raped. These are very serious offences and some victims, they are very young. And some offenders can be assessed to have a risk of re-offending.

Let me give Members an example which I have talked about publicly. In 2013, an offender was released from prison. He had been put in jail for raping his six-year-old stepdaughter. The sentence was for 19 years. He was released after 12 years, which is taking into account the usual one-third remission period. After he was released, the offender moved in to live with his sister and her young granddaughters. In 2015, just two years after being released, he started sexually assaulting one of the young girls. She was 10 years old at that time. The girl then moved out, but he did not stop. In 2017, he sexually assaulted the girl's younger sister. She was nine years old.

In 2022, the Court sentenced the offender to the maximum 20 years of Preventive Detention. The Court said that his risk of sexual re-offending was high.

This kind of conduct is highly reprehensible. Our society will not accept it. No society will accept it. But our society takes a very serious view of it. The impact on the young girls is devastating. Their lives shattered. We have to deal with this kind of menace and protect our society.

Let me give you another example. A few weeks ago, a man was sentenced to twenty-nine-and-a-half years in jail, for raping his niece. She was seven years old. For four years, he sexually assaulted her, almost every week, when she spent weekends at his home. He also gave her a sexually transmitted disease, and body-shamed her, until she developed an eating disorder. It is absolutely cruel what was done to the young girl. The girl is now in a welfare home, undergoing counselling. She is facing psychological trauma as Members can appreciate. The man also had more than 100 media discs with child pornography and a thumb drive with 12,000 child abuse images.

There are other examples of such offenders, committing egregious acts.

Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 2?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: This is a handout containing more such examples, from Singapore and abroad.

Members can see for themselves the kinds of troubling conduct and patterns of serious abuse, with persons offending repeatedly, sometimes, very shortly after they are released from prison.

Our response to these kinds of cases is SEPP. With the normal prison sentences, these offenders go free after serving their prison terms, even if there is an assessed risk that they might go out and do bad things. On the day of release, if responsible people assess that the person might go out and commit a serious crime, nevertheless, the person has to be released.

Take the first example I gave Members, of the man who sexually abused his two grandnieces. The Court said at the time of sentencing that his risk of sexual re-offending was high and sentenced him to the maximum 20 years of Preventive Detention. But what if there continues to be an assessed risk after he has served the 20 years? Under the current law, he will have to be released: no conditions and no risk assessment is done. With the SEPP, there can be a more calibrated approach to better protect society. There will be an assessment at the end of the minimum term to see if it is safe to release such offenders.

This brings me to my next point: how will the SEPP work? The SEPP is imposed by the Courts. When one of the Scheduled offences is committed, the Court decides whether to impose a normal sentence or the SEPP. When deciding on the appropriate sentence, the Courts can look at risk assessments by IMH and, of course, such other reports as the Court decides are necessary. The Defence can also make representations and submit expert evidence.

If the Court assesses that the offender poses a risk to others, it can impose the SEPP. But the Court also retains the discretion not to impose the SEPP, for example, where it would be “gravely disproportionate” in all the circumstances of the case.

If the Court imposes the SEPP, it will specify a minimum period of custody. That can be anywhere between five and 20 years. After this minimum period, the offender will be released if he is assessed to be suitable for release. This assessment will be made by the Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister will be advised by a Detention Review Board. The Board will be made up of relevant experts, for example, retired judges, lawyers, psychiatrists and psychologists. The offender and his lawyers can make representations to the Board.

This review model is not new. For example, there is a Life Imprisonment Review Board. This Board advises the Minister on whether to release prisoners. These are prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

Next, say, the offender is assessed to be suitable for release. He will be released on licence and conditions can be imposed on him. The conditions could include mandatory counselling, electronic monitoring or curfews. He will continue to be assessed until a view is taken that the conditions can be removed. In the meantime, we will support his integration back into the community.

On the other hand, if the assessment is that the offender should not be released, he will continue to remain in custody. The Minister must then review the offender’s suitability for release annually. And if he is eventually found suitable for release, he will be released.

Finally, on this point, what do we hope to achieve with the SEPP?

First, we hope that this will enhance public protection. An offender who continues to pose a real danger to others should not be released. I gave some examples earlier. We really ought to deal better with cases like that.

Second, the SEPP will, hopefully, promote rehabilitation. An offender sentenced to SEPP will have a very strong incentive to take his rehabilitation seriously in the first period of sentencing. Otherwise, he jeopardises his chances of being released. So, if he wants to be released after the minimum period, he will have to show both psychologically and through his behaviour that he is a changed person, that he can behave well and he does not need to be kept in. So, tremendous incentive for a person to work on his rehabilitation. These things can only work if the person who is the subject of the rehabilitation really puts in the effort.

Third, as I mentioned earlier, the SEPP allows for a more calibrated approach to sentencing. Take the examples I had mentioned earlier in the handout – egregious facts. A sentencing judge might think, “This person is a monster. Better not take the risk with a short sentence. Better to lock him away for a long time.” So, you do see some sentences, 20 years, 30 years, even more.

With the SEPP, the sentencing judges will now have more assurance, greater clarity, because the sentences they impose are only the minimum. There will be a further risk assessment with experts at the end of the minimum term. This can actually result in the Court imposing shorter sentences upfront.

Sir, I will now touch quickly on SPP. This is intended to replace and streamline the current Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD) regimes.

CT and PD were introduced in 1954 to deal with recalcitrant offenders. Since then, rehabilitation programmes have become widely available to all inmates. In particular, CT has become qualitatively similar to imprisonment. So, we have decided to do away with CT and adopt characteristics of both CT and PD in the new SPP. SPP is for a fixed term of between five and 20 years, and offenders will be eligible for release on licence after serving two-thirds of the sentence. SPP will be a useful sentencing option to deal with persistent or habitual offenders.

Finally, let me touch on FME. FMEs broadly consist of physical medical examinations, collection of body samples and taking photographs of body parts. These processes have now become very important for getting evidence in offences like rape and sexual assault. I will highlight two key aspects of the FME framework in the Bill.

First, we take a differentiated approach towards accused persons and victims. So, accused persons, one approach; victims, a different approach. For accused persons, Police can require them to undergo FMEs, even if they do not consent. Reasonable force can be used if the FME does not relate to intimate body parts or invasive procedures. But it will be an offence for an accused person to refuse an FME, unless he has a reasonable excuse, for example, if he has haemophilia and giving a blood sample could endanger his life. The Court can also draw adverse inferences from an accused person’s refusal to undergo FMEs.

In the case of victims, consent is generally required for FMEs. However, there can be exceptions. For example, FMEs may still be conducted, if delays will result in the loss of evidence and the victim is not able to give consent within a reasonable time due to a physical or mental condition. This could happen, for example, where a victim is sexually assaulted, falls into a coma and has no prior authorised decision-maker to give consent.

In many cases, time can be critical, especially for DNA evidence, because DNA can degrade very quickly, if it is exposed to the environment. Allowing FMEs to be taken in these cases is in the interests of both the victim and the public. It can make the difference between catching the culprit and him going free and, worse, committing more such offences.

There will be safeguards in place for both accused persons and victims to ensure that FMEs are conducted safely and sensitively. For example, only qualified medical professionals can conduct physical medical examinations and invasive medical procedures. Before taking a body sample, the person conducting the FME must be satisfied that it will not endanger the subject.

Only Police officers holding the rank of Inspector and above can require an FME involving intimate body parts. If the person undergoing an FME involving intimate body parts is a lady, the forensic specialist or Police officer carrying out the FME must also be a lady.

We have consulted quite extensively in preparing this Bill. Many stakeholders have shared their views, including the Judiciary, AGC, law enforcement agencies, criminal lawyers, members of the Law Society and members of the public. The feedback and suggestions have helped us to refine our policies and we have taken many of the suggestions on board. So, I thank all those who have participated and given their feedback, and I hope that Members today will support the Bill. The changes will do much to strengthen our criminal justice system and make Singapore a safer place.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

2.25 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Thank you, Speaker. In Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Please allow me to recap what Minister Shanmugam spoke about earlier and outline the key principles that underpins Singapore's criminal justice system.

The Government's objective for our criminal justice system is to ensure the safety of our people so that they can live their lives without worrying about their own safety. Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world, with a low crime rate, a fair and effective legal system, and a trustworthy police force. This is important for the well-being of our society and our economy.

We have always been ranked highly in terms of law and order and safety in international studies and surveys. We achieved this through laws that are tough on crime, effective enforcement of laws by the police and other law enforcement agencies, and fair and effective criminal procedures.

We need to strike a balance between the desire to protect individual rights and safeguarding the interests of society. We also need to continually review and update our laws. There are about 20 sets of amendments under this Bill, covering various aspects of the criminal justice process.

Three major changes have been proposed.

First, we will establish a legal framework for conducting Forensic Medical Examinations (FMEs); second, we will introduce a new Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP); and third, we will make amendments to the disclosure regime for our criminal cases.

I will give a brief explanation on the FME framework. FMEs generally consists of physical medical examinations, collection of body samples, and taking photographs of body parts. Through such a process, the police can gather forensic evidence for investigation. Forensic evidence is key in the investigation of major crimes. Therefore, there should be an effective legal framework for FMEs.

The key features of the framework are as follows.

First, we will establish safeguards to ensure that FMEs are conducted safely and sensitively. This includes ensuring that only qualified medical professionals conduct examinations and procedures; the person conducting the FME must be satisfied that it will not endanger the subject; the order to perform FME is given by police officers with the rank of Inspector and above; and measures to protect privacy are taken for FMEs involving intimate parts, for example, ensuring that such FMEs that need to be conducted on a female is carried out by a female police officer or a female forensic expert.

Second, we take a differentiated approach towards accused persons and victims. For accused persons, the police will have powers to require them to undergo FMEs, even if they do not consent.

This is because if a person is guilty, the person will most likely refuse to be examined, if given a choice. Reasonable force can be used to conduct the FME, as long as it does not involve intimate body parts or invasive procedures. It will be an offence to refuse to undergo an FME without a reasonable excuse, and the accused can be imprisoned or fined, or both. The court can also draw adverse inferences from the accused person's refusal to undergo FMEs.

In the case of victims, consent is generally required. It is important to ensure that victims, especially those who were sexually assaulted, are handled sensitively, to prevent them from being traumatised again. If there is no consent, the police generally will not proceed with the FME.

However, there are several exceptions, for example, if the victim has fallen into a coma after being sexually assaulted and DNA evidence will degrade if it is not collected as soon as possible. The scope of exceptions to consent is stringent and the Police will implement such exclusions judiciously. The Police will also wait, as far as possible, for the victim to recover before obtaining consent.

Moving on to the SEPP. SEPP represents a significant change to our sentencing landscape. Currently, an offender who receives a prison sentence, will be incarcerated for a fixed term as determined by the Court, and must be released unconditionally after that period.

However, there is a small group of high-risk offenders who still pose a danger to the public at the time of release, such as serial sexual offenders. The law currently does not allow us to stop such offenders from being released from jail or impose any conditions for their release, even if they are likely to re-offend.

Just now, Minister Shanmugam cited several tragic and egregious cases where the offender commits serious crimes shortly after being released from prison and also referred to a list of such cases. Let me share another example.

In 2020, an offender was convicted of committing sexual abuse on his girlfriend's eight year old daughter and nine year old son; both of whom had low IQs. The offender had sexually assaulted them, forced them to watch videos displaying sexual behaviour, and to commit indecent acts while recording them. The children obeyed him because they were helpless and afraid of the offender. The offender began committing this serious offence just two years after his release from prison. He was previously imprisoned for sexually abusing his own four-year-old daughter.

Arising from such cases, the Government has been looking at ways to better protect the public from such dangerous offenders. SEPP is our response. There are stringent requirements that must be fulfilled before the court can impose SEPP.

First, SEPP can only be imposed for very serious offences, which will be set out in the legislation. These offences include homicide or murder, attempted murder, rape and sexual penetration of a minor.

Second, there are strict prerequisites that must be fulfilled before SEPP can be imposed.

Third, SEPP only applies to adult offenders aged 21 years and above at the time of the offence.

This is in line with our general approach to sentencing young offenders, where the main focus is on rehabilitation. Since SEPP is a sentence, the Courts will decide whether SEPP should be imposed. This is usually done after considering the risk assessment report by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) which is done independently. The Defence can also submit its own expert report. Court procedures will be applied at this stage. An appeal can also be filed if the Prosecution or Defence is not satisfied with the Court's decision.

The Court will retain the discretion not to impose SEPP, for example, if a less severe sentence can still achieve the goal of public protection. When imposing SEPP, the Court will specify a minimum period of custody between 5 and 20 years. Offenders will remain in prison for the duration of this minimum period, which cannot be shortened.

At the end of the minimum period, the offender will be re-evaluated and only released if assessed to be suitable for release by the Minister for Home Affairs, on the advice of a Detention Review Board.

This is a matter of public protection and safety which is best decided by the Minister, and not the judge. The Minister’s power under SEPP is also in line with existing regimes such as Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD), and for life imprisonment.

The power of the Minister is subject to safeguards. If the Minister decides not to release the offender, the Minister must review the decision within a year. In effect, the Minister's power is only to detain someone for one more year before the status is reviewed again. Furthermore, the decision of the Minister is subject to judicial review.

The review process will also be fair. There will be a Detention Review Board that will assess each offender under SEPP.

The Review Board will be made up of those with experience in forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. It may include retired judges and Judicial Commissioners, senior lawyers or psychologists and psychiatrists.

Offenders or their representatives, including family members or legal counsel, will be allowed to make a representation. All relevant information will be provided to the Review Board, and in turn, to the Minister, including on the conduct and progress of the offender, and the risk assessment by a psychiatrist that will be done independently.

A key safeguard, both at the sentencing and review levels, is an independent expert assessment. Such assessment will be done by psychiatrists using evidence-based scientific tools, which are internationally recognised.

They will carefully evaluate various risk factors, including past violence; the level of understanding by the offender about his conduct and response to his treatment; and the support available to the offender upon release.

If the Minister finds the offender suitable for release, the offender will be released on licence and subject to conditions. This could include mandatory counselling, electronic monitoring or curfews.

This period of release on licence balances the need to allow such offenders to return to live in the community, with the need to reduce threats to the public. We will help offenders who are released on licence to return to society.

However, if an offender breaches the conditions of his licence or re-offends, he may be re-imprisoned and the Minister may revoke his release order.

Once released with a licence, the offender will be reviewed at least once every two years, to monitor his progress. If found suitable, the offender can be released unconditionally and the sentence ends.

Speaker sir, SEPP has many advantages, including enhancing protection for society against harm, promoting rehabilitation because offenders have strong incentives to improve themselves and fair punishment rules based on risk.

We introduced this regime after studying the issue carefully and concluding that it is necessary to better protect the public. We have also discussed these amendments extensively, including conducting a public consultation in 2021, and have taken in the suggestions that were submitted.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I will now speak about the amendments to law enforcement powers, the proposed provisions on criminal disclosure regime and other amendments to improve our Court processes. These proposed amendments aim to strengthen our levers to tackle crime and enhance transparency, fairness and coherence in our criminal procedure laws.

Let me begin with law enforcement powers. Broadly, these amendments are intended to strengthen operational efficiency and investigative capabilities.

The first category of the amendments will update, enhance and clarify Police powers. Clause 10 empowers the Police to search suspects at the point of arrest, to detect and remove dangerous items from them. This is to prevent arrested persons from possibly using these items to harm themselves or others, such as the arresting officers and passers-by.

Clause 3 removes the requirement for the Police to physically proceed to the crime scene when investigating arrestable offences, which, with advancements in technology and changes in the profile of crimes, is no longer always necessary or relevant. To be clear, the CPC currently already provides for circumstances where the Police need not investigate into arrestable offences and there is no change to this with the proposed amendments.

Clause 5 allows the Police to conduct a search without warrant at a place when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence is in the possession or power of a suspect of an arrestable offence.

Currently, the Police can already perform a search without warrant for arrestable offences in certain circumstances. For example, if the Police have reason to believe that a suspect would be uncooperative or is likely to destroy the evidence before a search can be conducted.

The difficulty is that it is not always straightforward for the Police to make such a determination at the onset. Often, Police can only reasonably assess the cooperativeness of a suspect after having engaged him or her or sent the production order. Requiring that the Police do so in all cases is not practicable, as that would put the suspects on notice and allow them to tamper or destroy evidence.

The amendment is a practical one that allows for more effective Police investigations.

I would like to highlight that several pre-requisites must be fulfilled before the Police can exercise this power.

First, they must be investigating an arrestable offence. Second, the Police must have reason to believe that the document or thing is in the possession or control of a person, reasonably suspected of having committed the offence. This clause does not give the Police carte blanche powers to search anyone or anything. It also does not give the Police powers to frisk or search individuals walking along the streets just because the Police find them suspicious.

The second category of the amendments will expand the powers of certain non-police law enforcement agencies (LEAs).

Clause 11 empowers the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers, immigration officers and prison officers to pursue and arrest a person who has escaped from the lawful custody of their respective agency, another specified LEA, or a prescribed LEA.

Currently, only the Police and the officer from whose custody a person has escaped are empowered to pursue and arrest him.

However, officers from CNB, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Prisons can also play significant roles in arrest operations. For instance, ICA officers may come across the person at the checkpoint and can arrest him. This amendment will enhance the joint Home Team operations and allow the Home Team departments to operate more effectively together.

To give another example, clause 7 empowers non-Police LEAs to investigate bail and absconding offences arising from the predicate offences under their purview. Currently, such officers have to seek the Police's assistance to investigate such offences.

For greater efficiency, the relevant LEA, which is more familiar with the details of the case, will have the powers to investigate the bail and absconding offences committed by the same accused person and arising from the case which they are investigating.

Moving on to the amendments on criminal disclosure, let me begin by providing an overview of our criminal disclosure laws.

In 2010, we introduced a framework for pre-trial disclosure in the CPC, namely the Criminal Case Disclosure Regime, which is commonly referred to as the "CCD regime". The CCD regime formalised a framework for the Prosecution and Defence to sequentially disclose and exchange relevant information about their respective cases before trial. This has led to greater transparency and consistency, and has been welcomed by all sides – the Judiciary, the Defence and the Prosecution.

Since 2011, a common law disclosure regime has developed in parallel through case law. The Courts have held that the Prosecution is also obliged to disclose certain additional material on top of what the CCD regime requires.

I will briefly explain these: first, under the Kadar disclosure obligations (KDO), the Prosecution must disclose unused material that tends to undermine the Prosecution's case or strengthen the Defence's case, and is likely to be either admissible and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused; or inadmissible, but would provide a real, not fanciful chance of pursuing a line of inquiry that leads to material that is likely to be admissible, and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Put simply, the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence unused material that may be helpful to the accused.

Second, under the Additional Disclosure Obligations (ADO), the Prosecution must disclose statements of material witnesses who are not called as Prosecution witnesses.

A "material witness" is one who can be expected to confirm or contradict the accused's defence in material respects.

The ADO does not involve an assessment of the substance of the material witness's statement. It covers statements which may be adverse, neutral or helpful to the Defence.

There are overlaps between the KDO and the ADO. Where an unused material witness's statement is helpful to the Defence, it would have to be disclosed under the KDO.

In 2020, MinLaw commenced a comprehensive review of the criminal disclosure regime. One thing was clear to us – it is desirable to place the common law disclosure rules on a statutory footing, for greater clarity, certainty and coherence.

It was necessary for us to study how the existing common law regime interfaced with the CCD regime, as well as the overall aims of disclosure. We also considered how some areas of the common law regime, which had been left open by the Courts, should be addressed.

Even though it was working well, we also considered improvements to the statutory disclosure framework, after having observed it in practice for several years.

Disclosure is an important aspect of the criminal trial process and has significant implications on the pre-trial and trial process. It was especially important for us to study the practical aspects, including the possible implications on Prosecutors, Defence counsel, the Courts and law enforcement agencies.

While the initial set of disclosure proposals were ready in early 2021, we took time to finalise them because of our extensive consultations with the various stakeholders, including the Defence Bar, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the Courts.

These proposals were arrived at after extensive discussions with the Defence Bar. We presented the proposals to criminal practitioners and members of the Law Society in 2021, and they provided extensive feedback over multiple consultation sessions through to late 2023. Some of the proposals were adjusted significantly, following the feedback received.

While we did not agree with the Bar on every point, we explained the rationale for the proposals, and had candid and robust discussions. Through this process, we were assured that the viewpoints and implications on the various stakeholders, including the Defence and the Prosecution, have been considered, to ensure that our proposed amendments are fair.

Ultimately, the regime requires all stakeholders to play their part to ensure procedural fairness. Prosecutors are expected to discharge their disclosure obligations dutifully. The AG has also said publicly that prosecutors take great care to comply with their disclosure obligations, in fairness to the Defence.

I will now take you through the proposed disclosure provisions. There are two key aspects.

First, clauses 23 and 42, place the common law disclosure rules on a statutory footing, by codifying, clarifying or modifying aspects of the common law. The provisions will codify the common law position on: one, the scope of the KDO and ADO; two, the timing of the KDO; and three, the continuing nature of the KDO and ADO, among others.

We recognise the importance of the KDO and ADO in ensuring fairness to accused persons, and this is why we are putting these obligations in legislation. We have provided illustrations to help the public and parties understand what the obligations entail.

Some aspects of the common law will be modified or clarified to better align with the sequential nature of the statutory disclosure regime. We will provide that ADO is to be given after the accused has committed to a defence, either in his Case for the Defence (CFD) or his testimony, in cases where there is no CFD.

Moving the ADO to after the accused has committed to a defence, either in the CFD or in his testimony, is more consistent with the sequential and reciprocal nature of the CCD regime, where the accused will generally only receive material after filing the CFD.

I would also highlight that, statements of material witnesses that are helpful to the accused will be disclosed earlier, pursuant to the KDO. This would take place when the Case for the Prosecution (CFP) is filed, in CCD cases; or, in non-CCD cases, before the trial commences.

Accused persons are expected to state their defence honestly. Generally, they would be able to do so, based on what they know.

However, we also considered feedback, that there may be cases where accused persons decide to change their defence after obtaining new material disclosed under the ADO. There were concerns that, in cases where the new defence is a genuine one, which the accused could not have known about earlier, an adverse inference could be unfairly drawn against the accused.

We want to be clear, that accused persons will not be prevented from running a new or different defence, which was genuinely uncovered after the Defence obtained new material disclosed under the ADO. If the accused decides to run a new or different defence based on new material disclosed under the ADO, he can explain his reasons for the change. The Court will consider the accused's explanation for changing his defence, and accordingly assess what, if any, inference should be drawn.

Next, we will also provide rules for the disclosure of unused accused statements, specifically, that (a) unused accused statements are outside the scope of KDO; and (b) in non-CCD cases or CCD cases where the CFD is not filed, unused accused statements relevant to the charge are required to be disclosed only after the accused has testified or elected not to testify.

Accused statements come from the accused, and are, hence, different from other types of unused material which the accused may not know about. The proposed rules are also consistent with the CCD regime, where accused statements which the Prosecution is not seeking to adduce as part of its case are required to be disclosed only after the accused has set out his defence in the CFD.

The second aspect of the disclosure provisions, in clauses 14, 15, 18, 19 and 22, involves fine-tuning aspects of the CCD regime.

The CCD regime has been in place since 2010 and has worked well in promoting greater transparency and efficiency in criminal trials. In 2018, we expanded the regime, so that more cases could benefit from pre-trial disclosure.

We will now further expand the CCD regime to require compulsory participation in both State Court and High Court CCD cases.

First, we will remove the possibility of opting out of the CCD regime in State Courts cases.

Second, we will make it compulsory for the accused to file a CFD, after receiving the CFP, in High Court cases.

As the CCD regime was novel when it was introduced in 2011, we took an incremental approach. Today, CFDs are regularly filed for most State Court CCD trials and this has contributed to a more efficient criminal justice system. When parties file the CFP and the CFD, this facilitates clearer identification of the disputed issues, which in turn, makes the trial more focused and efficient.

Requiring the Defence to file a CFD also avoids potential delays that may arise from the belated disclosure of the Defence's case, which may arise due to a need for further investigations to verify the accused's claims or having to recall witnesses.

The proposed changes will align the position in High Court cases with that for State Court cases. Given the complexity of trials in the High Court and the severe consequences involved, it is essential that parties can prepare for trial and assess their cases more fully.

Finally, a clear articulation of the accused's defence in the CFD will help the Prosecution to identify relevant evidence, including evidence that may be helpful to the Defence and better comply with its KDO and ADO.

The proposed provisions will also further fine-tune other aspects of the CCD regime. For example, we will enhance consistency between the Prosecution's CCD obligations in State Courts cases and High Court cases, by requiring the Prosecution to file a summary of facts in support of the charge in High Court CCD cases, similar to the State Court cases.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout detailing an overview of the post-amendment disclosure framework in CCD cases?

Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app.

As Members can see, the CCD regime ensures that the Defence receives material from the Prosecution before the trial commences. On the whole, the proposed disclosure provisions reflect our commitment to ensuring transparency and fairness in criminal proceedings.

Now, moving on to the last set of amendments under the Bill, which are the amendments to improve efficiency in our court processes. Clause 16 proposes to allow the Court to release persons accused of relatively minor non-bailable offences – that is, offences punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment – on personal bond, as an alternative to bail.

Currently, such accused persons can only be released on bail and, will be remanded if they are offered bail but cannot find a bailor. This amendment will allow more accused persons to be released before trial, in appropriate cases.

There will be safeguards to guard against the risk of absconding. For example, the Prosecution must consent, before the person can be released on personal bond. Even if the Prosecution consents, the Court can decide not to release the person on personal bail, if it considers that this would not be appropriate.

Finally, there are also amendments to smoothen and clarify the processes for several new regimes introduced previously, such as the dispensation of oral hearings in certain cases, the new unsoundness of mind regime, the Panel of Psychiatrists and the enhanced victim compensation regime.

Mr Speaker, the Bill is a significant milestone in our criminal justice framework. The proposed amendments, build on past reforms and demonstrate our commitment towards building a fair and effective criminal justice system that protects society from crime.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

2.52 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to deliver my speech in Mandarin?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please do.

Ms Sun Xueling (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government's overall aim for our criminal justice system is to ensure that society is safe and secure and people can go about their lives without worrying about their safety. This has always been a priority for the Government.

We have achieved this through tough criminal laws, effective enforcement of our laws by the police and other law and enforcement agencies and fair and effective criminal procedures. Every country should have a criminal justice system that meets its own unique needs. Ultimately, we must maintain the right balance between protecting individuals' rights and safeguarding society's interests.

The balance we have struck in Singapore is a good one, both in principle and practice. The proposed amendments in this Bill are consistent with our philosophy towards law and order. There are about 20 sets of amendments under this Bill.

First, I will talk about forensic medical examinations. Forensic evidence is valuable in the investigation of major crimes, such as serious sexual offences. For example, in 2016, there was a case where a stranger broke into the victim's house, assaulted and raped her, before making off with some of her belongings. The accused denied committing the offences, but forensic evidence in this case – the accused's semen and findings of the victim's DNA on the accused, was critical in establishing that he was responsible for the offences.

Given the value of the forensic evidence in investigations, we are proposing a legislative framework for conducting forensic medical examinations (FMEs).

First, we set up safeguards to ensure that examinations are conducted safely and sensitively. Only qualified medical professionals will be allowed to conduct physical medical examinations and invasive medical procedures. For examinations involving intimate body parts, only police officers holding the rank of Inspector and above, can require the examinations to be conducted.

And, where such an examination is conducted by police officers or forensic specialists, and the individual undergoing the examination is a woman, the examination may only be carried out by a woman.

Second, the requirement of consent is different for the accused persons and victims. For accused persons, police will have powers to require them to undergo forensic medical examinations, even if they do not consent. Refusal to undergo examinations, without reasonable excuse, will be an offence and accused person may be jailed or fine or both.

The Courts may also draw negative inferences from any refusal by the accused person to undergo examination.

On the other hand, for victims, consent is generally required. It is important to treat victims, especially those who have suffered sexual assault, sensitively, to avoid re-traumatising them.

If there is no consent, police will not proceed with the examination. However, there are some exceptions. For example, if a victim falls into a coma after a sexual assault and DNA evidence would be lost if not collected as soon as possible. Police will exercise the exceptions judiciously. For example, if the victim is drunk and is expected to become sober within a reasonable time, the police will generally wait for the victim to recover and then seek the victim's consent.

The next major set of amendments that I will address, is the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP).

The SEPP represents a significant change in our sentencing landscape. Today, offenders sentenced to imprisonment are incarcerated for a fixed-term determined by the court and must be released unconditionally after that term. However, there is a small group of high-risk offenders who still post a danger to the public at the point of release. Such offenders, include serial sexual predators.

Let me give you an example. In 2022, an offender was sentenced to 45 years imprisonment for sexually abusing eight children with learning or physical difficulties, after offering to tutor them. These offences were committed over a period of 16 years from 2002 to 2018. The victims were as young as five years old and the offender recorded videos of the numerous attacks. He was assessed by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) to be at very high risk of repeated sexual offending against young female victims.

The law currently does not allow us to hold this type of offenders back in prison or even impose any conditions on their release, even if they are likely to reoffend. This can lead to tragic consequences. In recent years, we have seen cases, where offenders commit serious sexual crimes against vulnerable victims, such as children, soon after being released from prison.

Each of these cases is sickening. When such cases happen, we might ask ourselves: Why were these offenders allowed back into the community in the first place? Were they still a danger to others? Could these crimes have been prevented?

The SEPP is our response. When an offender is sentenced to the SEPP, the Court will specify a minimum period of custody. After the offender is detained in prison for that minimum period, he will be assessed. The offender will only be released, if we assess that he no longer poses a significant threat to others. Even after the offender is released, he will be placed on licence and subject to conditions. He will continue to be assessed. The sentence will be brought to an end, only if the Minister assesses that the offender is ready to be released unconditionally. If not, the sentence will extend to the end of the offender's natural life.

As it is a sentence, it is the Court, which decides whether to impose the SEPP.

There are strict requirements that must be fulfilled before the court can impose the SEPP. The SEPP can only be imposed for very serious offences, including culpable homicide, attempted murder, rape and sexual penetration of a minor.

Let me emphasise that it is the Court that decides whether to impose the SEPP.

This will generally be after considering an independent risk assessment report by IMH. The defence can also submit its own expert's report. Usual court procedures will apply at this stage. An appeal may also be filed, if either the prosecution or the defence is dissatisfied with the Court's decision.

The Court will retain the discretion not to impose the SEPP, for example, if a less severe sentence will also achieve the goal of public protection. At the end of the minimum term, the offender will be reviewed and will only be released if assessed to be suitable for release by the Minister for Home Affairs, on the advice of a Detention Review Board. The Review Board will comprise persons with high public standing, with experience and forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. This may include retired judges and retired judicial commissioners, senior lawyers or senior psychiatrists or psychologists.

The offender or his representatives, including family members or legal counsel, will be allowed to make written representations.

All relevant information, including the offender's conduct and progress and an independent risk assessment by a psychiatrist, will be provided to the Review Board and subsequently to the Minister.

The Minister's powers under the SEPP are in line with existing regimes, such as Corrective Training (CT), Preventive Detention (PD) and life imprisonment. The Minister's powers are subject to safeguards. If the Minister decides not to release an offender, the Minister must review that decision again, within a year. Furthermore, the Minister's decision can be subject to judicial review.

A key safeguard, both at the sentencing and review stages, will be independent assessments by experts.

Such assessments will be done by psychiatrists, using evidence-based scientific tools, which are internationally validated. They assess a wide range of risk factors, including previous violence, the offender's degree of insight into his conduct and responsivity to treatment and the support available to the offender when released. A scientific and regular rigorous approach will be taken for the risk assessment.

Let me summarise the three key benefits of the SEPP.

First, it enhances the protection of the public. An offender who continues to pose a real danger to others will not be released.

Second, it promotes rehabilitation. An offender sentenced to the SEPP knows that his release is not guaranteed, therefore, he has a clear and powerful incentive to take his rehabilitation seriously and participate in the many corrective programmes that are offered in Prisons.

Third, it enables more calibrated punishment. Under the SEPP, there will be an updated risk assessment at the end of the minimum period. The length of the offender’s incarceration, beyond that point, can be calibrated to the specific risk which he poses. He need not be detained for longer than necessary.

The purpose of the SEPP is to protect the public. The SEPP regime will be continuously refined as it is implemented in the future, to strike a balance between safeguarding society’s interest and protecting individual's rights.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

3.04 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir. I rise in support of the Bill. I will cover three main areas in my speech: first, the amendments relating to the FME; second, on the criminal disclosure obligations; and third, on the SEPP regime.

On the FME, I welcome these amendments that will help preserve evidence crucial to solving serious sexual and violent crimes. I was volunteering as the board member of a crisis shelter for survivors of domestic violence, some of whom are victims of violent crimes as well. These amendments are important to assist the Police and our investigating bodies in administering FME.

However, I have a few clarifications. Firstly, of particular interest to me is the issue of obtaining consent. This is especially where there are grounds to believe that a delay in carrying out the FME may result in the loss, degradation, or contamination of the evidence. Can the Minister clarify what are the circumstances when the Police will determine that a victim is unable to provide consent within a reasonable time? Would this be done in consultation with advice from medical professionals, for instance, as to the probability of the victim waking up from coma or would the default position be to obtain consent from the victim's next of kin or authorised decision-maker?

Secondly, on training. Would Police officers or persons conducting the FME go through any sensitivity or trauma training to handle the situation with tact, taking into consideration any cultural or religious sensitivities, especially when interacting with decision makers, parents or spouses of victims?

Thirdly, on facilities to aid conduct of FMEs, in a Parliamentary Question in 2017, MHA stated that the Police issued sexual assault examination kits to hospitals with 24/7 obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) specialist clinics. There was also a collaboration on the One Safe Centre for reporting within 72 hours of assault. I would like to ask whether there will be more clinics that can be equipped for FME? For instance, can selected general practitioners (GPs) conduct FMEs? Family doctors who have treated and established a long-standing relationship with the victims' family may know the full history of the victim or the family members and thus the victim may be more comfortable with that particular doctor. This FME by the doctor, of course, can be conducted in the presence of the Police or their own FME experts.

Fourthly, what are the efforts to encourage more victims to come forward to report so that they receive professional help and, at the same time, secure the evidence through FME? Time is of the essence. The European Union (EU), in adopting the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, stated that according to research, it is good practise to carry out FMEs regardless of whether the matter will be reported to the Police and to offer the possibility of having samples taken and stored appropriately so that the decision as to whether or not to report the assault can be taken later by the victim. Due to the stigma and criminal proceedings that will ensue, some victims may not come forward in time or come forward at all. We perhaps need our clinics or centres equipped as a safe zone reporting shelter for victims to get medical, psychological and legal counselling, and FME with evidence to be secured and retained for investigation.

Fifthly, may ask if our offices of medical practitioners are provided immunity from personal liability in the conduct of FME on the victim? In this regard, would medical advice on the exact FME procedure and any related risk be explained to the person so that he or she will be able to make an informed decision?

Lastly, on safeguards in FMEs. Dr Jack Lee, in his article in the Singapore Law Review, provided various recommendations on such safeguards by considering the degree of encroachment into the suspects bodily integrity, dignity and privacy. This is classified into: one, non-intimate and non-intrusive procedures; two, intimate non-intrusive procedures; three, intimate intrusive procedures; four, prohibited procedures; and fifth, general safeguards. Do the Police or relevant related agencies have an internal guideline for such safeguards in FMEs? If so, would non-intimate procedures or non-intrusive procedures be prioritised or preferred in the first instance?

I now move on to criminal case disclosure. I welcome the amendments to codify the Common Law obligations into legislation. These amendments address a fundamental concern of ensuring that relevant and material evidence in the prosecutions' possession, which either incriminates or exculpates the accused, is made available to the defence at the pre-trial stage and is subsequently adduced at trial so that the Court is apprised of the full facts and all available evidence.

This is a long time coming, following the Nabill Disclosure Obligations decided in 2020 and the Kadar Disclosure Obligations decided in 2011. In the Nabill case, the Court of Appeal deliberately left open the question of whether the prosecution would be required to disclose the prior statements of a material witness, where such witness is called to testify as a prosecution witness. This issue finally came up for consideration in the case of Pigg, Derek Gordon vs the Public Prosecutor and the High Court held that a prosecution witness' prior statements can fall within the KDO obligations.

Even though such statements are presumptively inadmissible, this decision is also consistent with orbital expressed by the Court of Appeal in earlier decisions as well. In this regard, I welcome the new section 221d which makes it clear that the prosecution has a continuing obligation to serve certain materials on the defence if the prosecution becomes aware of such materials before the accused is convicted or acquitted.

However, the present amendments made it clear that the ADO does not require disclosure of prosecution witness statements. I would like to ask, in light of the developments in the case law, would the new sections 221a to 221d prevent the prosecution from disclosing position prosecution witness' prior statements? In what circumstances would the prosecution have an obligation to disclose such prior statements?

Mr Speaker, lastly, on the SEPP regime, I welcome the amendments to introduce new sentences for public protection. With the SEPP, an offender will not be automatically released after serving the minimum sentence unless he or she is assessed to no longer post a threat to the public. I thank the Minister for sharing on the composition of the retention review board for the review of SEPP.

However, I have a few clarifications. Are offenders able to obtain legal representation during the review board hearing? Would the views of the victims' families or public interest be considered before an offender is released from SEPP? And lastly, whether the sentencing advisory panel has any role to play in determining the ambits and types of offences that may fall within the SEPP in the future? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.12 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the CPC amendment Bill proposes some significant changes to our criminal procedure. I will first talk about what I see as improvements and then touch on some provisions of concern.

First, on the improvements. The three improvements I will touch on are first, pre-trial release on personal bond; second, codification of prosecution’s duty to disclose unused materials; and third, compensation orders for victims.

First, on pre-trial release on personal bond. Sir, I am very pleased to see the change to enable more accused persons to be released while waiting for their trials. Clause 12 will amend section 93 of the Code, to make it more explicit that certain accused persons can be released on their own personal bonds and not need to find a bailor to post bail. This will apply at both the stage when the law enforcement agency is managing the case, as well as later, when the accused is charged in Court. Accused persons will be eligible to be released on personal bond if they are facing charges where the maximum imprisonment for the offence is not more than seven years.

By making the option of being released on personal bond very explicit, it is likely that law enforcement agencies and the Court will release more accused persons on personal bond. This is especially meaningful for suspects who are poor and cannot find bailors of means to post bail for them. As I had highlighted during the debate on the Workers’ Party (WP)'s Justice Motion in November 2020, not being able to post bail will usually result in job loss and devastating consequences on the family. In addition, such pre-trial detention would affect the person’s ability to prepare his defence. I had also highlighted that to address any concerns, conditions could be imposed when releasing a person on his own bond, such as reporting requirements, maintaining employment and so on. Clause 13 gives effect to this.

Sir, I had suggested during the Justice Motion that pre-trial release on personal bond be looked into. This amendment goes towards levelling the playing field between the rich and the poor in the criminal justice process and I commend it.

Next, codification of prosecution’s duty to disclose unused materials. Clause 23 introduces a new Part 10A to the Code, entitled "Prosecution’s Obligation to Serve Certain Materials on the Defence". The new provisions basically seek to import into the Code certain principles that have evolved through recent Court cases. During the debate in 2020 on the Justice Motion, the Leader of the Opposition had also suggested that codification of this obligation be done for greater clarity. By importing these principles into the CPC, it would be easier for law enforcement, Prosecution, Defence and also the general public to access them and to understand what is expected.

Third, compensation orders for victims. The third improvement I would like to highlight is in clause 40. This concerns the Court’s powers in a criminal case to order compensation to the crime victim. Clause 40 amends section 359 of the Code to increase the chances of compensation being awarded in a criminal case. One change will be that if the court decides not to award compensation, it has to give its reasons for not doing so. Secondly, in a case where the offender has caused death, a dependant of the deceased victim can be awarded compensation for bereavement and funeral expenses. These are positive moves to ease the pain of victimisation.

Sir, I next move to my areas of concern. I would like to highlight two areas: first, on one aspect of FMEs, and secondly, on the new SEPP.

First, on FMEs. Clause 7 will introduce the new Part 4 Division 5 of the Code, which will govern FMEs.

I note the framework set out for the conduct of FMEs both on victims and suspects. The provisions will facilitate obtaining evidence of high value to solve crimes, and include some safeguards to ensure that trained professionals conduct FMEs with regard to privacy concerns.

Sir, the FME regime can be invasive, such as drawing samples from intimate body parts or drawing blood; they can also be non-invasive, such as drawing non-intimate body samples like head hair, urine or swabs of the mouth. In the case of non-invasive FMEs, the proposed section 40I provides that reasonable force can be used by authorised officers to extract the samples if the accused is uncooperative. Under the proposed section 40I(2), such an authorised officer includes an auxiliary police officer (APO). I am concerned about this.

As we are aware, APOs are trained mainly to conduct security activities and to assist police in maintaining law and order. Involving APOs in the use of force to extract body samples from accused persons is a highly confrontational investigative process which carries significant risk. I would like to know how APOs are qualified or trained to perform such a task.

Finally, on SEPP. There has been some public concern about the introduction of the SEPP – and justifiably so. The concern largely stems from the fact that even though the offender has been sentenced by the court to a minimum custody period of between five to 20 years, when precisely the offender will be released is subject to annual review by the Ministry; in fact, he may never be released if deemed to be still dangerous. Thus, an SEPP inmate could spend the rest of his life behind bars, based on a prediction. Under the proposed section 304B of the Code, an SEPP sentence could be imposed even on someone who is appearing before the Courts for the first time, with no prior criminal records.

In assessing the SEPP, I note at the outset the following safeguards in the Bill. First, whether to invoke the SEPP would be decided by the sentencing Court and not the Ministry. The judge will make this decision aided by risk reports submitted by the Prosecution and also by the Defence. Secondly, the category of offences for which the SEPP may be invoked is circumscribed by the proposed Seventh Schedule. These offences generally include serious sexual crimes but also non-sexual violent crimes where death or grievous hurt is caused. Thirdly, even if the case falls within the Seventh Schedule, the judge need not invoke the SEPP and can instead decide to proceed with other sentences. The judge may assess that an SEPP sentence is not required to protect the public; or, as explained by sub-section 9 of section 304B, the judge may also decide that there are special reasons not to impose the SEPP, such as when a lesser sentence is adequate or when an SEPP sentence would be gravely disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Sir, these judicial safeguards are very critical. I reiterate that the SEPP is a severe sentence that should be invoked only in the most extreme of circumstances and there are compelling reasons for this.

First, even within the offences listed in the Seventh Schedule, such as those involving death or grievous hurt, these could arise in circumstances where the offender may not be dangerous in general. Such scenarios could include one-off incidents of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, or a case of a family member not taking steps to stop another person in the household from causing the death of a child or vulnerable person. In such cases, the usual sentence for the offences should suffice, as these sentences are what Parliament has approved as appropriate for the crimes concerned.

Secondly, whether risk assessments are reliable or not has proven to be a real issue in other jurisdictions. Predictions of dangerousness, even by trained professionals, can be wrong. There is ample research literature in the United States (US) that predictions of future violence, more often than not, turn out cases which are "false positives" and that out of every three persons predicted to commit future violence, only one will do so. Although risk assessment tools have become more sophisticated over time, and some argue are more reliable today, the risk of false positives will always be there. We therefore run the risk of over-detaining someone based on a wrong prediction of dangerousness. In the case of the SEPP, the risk of over-detention is amplified because there is no definite release date.

That said, I note the efforts by the Government to clearly scope the application of the SEPP. The SEPP provisions apply to a restricted class of offences. In addition, it seems from the Ministry’s pronouncements that the SEPP is targeted at a small handful of offenders who may have psychiatric disorders like paedophilia. Even so, I call on the Courts and the Ministry to be circumspect when assessing the clinical assessment reports, as they are not infallible. In addition, whether a person deemed dangerous at age 50 will be equally dangerous at age 70 deserves intense scrutiny.

Sir, I wish to make one observation about an aspect that struck me when reading MinLaw’s press release on the Bill, and that is about offenders who are convicted of multiple offences. In two of the scenarios highlighted that were deemed possibly suitable for the SEPP, the offenders were sentenced by the Court to very long imprisonment terms of 40 years and 45 years for sexual offences against multiple victims. These very long jail terms were the result of the jail terms imposed for several charges being ordered by the Court to run consecutively, that is, some jail terms were added up, to run one after another. I pause here to note that 40-plus years is a much longer period of time than the currently proposed minimum detention period for the SEPP of five to 20 years. Therefore, in such cases of multiple charges, judges can already order the offender to spend the majority of their lives in jail, using long-established and accepted sentencing principles. This would, to me, be preferable and would attract less controversy than leaving it to the executive to determine when an offender should be released.

Sir, all in all, the SEPP makes a difficult debate. I understand the rationale of protecting the public in the scenarios described. In view of the limited class of offences involved, and the judicial safeguards I mentioned earlier, I feel constrained to offer my cautious support for it.

Sir, let me conclude. I have highlighted in my speech three positive aspects of the Bill, regarding the release of persons before trial on personal bond, prosecution's duty to disclose materials and on compensation for crime victims. On the other hand, I have concerns about the role of auxiliary police in FMEs and the SEPP regime. I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications. Overall, the WP is in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

3.24 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in full support of the Bill. The new framework for FMEs will certainly help our police force to solve crimes more effectively and accurately. I am hopeful it will also serve as a deterrent and reduce the incidences of crime.

Next, the SEPP is indeed suitable for dangerous offenders who are at risk of reoffending after release from prison. Members of the public, in particular vulnerable potential victims of violent or sexual crimes must be protected from such criminals. Numerous past cases have shown that despite time in prison, despite counselling or therapy, certain offenders, upon completing their sentences, continue to pose a threat to our community. They remain unsuitable for life outside of prison. Hence, it is the right decision to keep them detained.

While I am assured to learn that the assessment of an offender’s suitability for release takes into consideration many factors, including the results of psychological tests, would the Ministries of Law and Home Affairs share in greater detail, what methods are used in these assessments to determine if the convicts will pose a threat to the public?

Regarding sexual offenders deemed suitable for release, especially those who had attacked children, would the Ministries consider additional measures for public safety? For example, in some other countries, such as South Korea, Poland, even some states in the US and more recently Thailand, these offenders are given the option of chemical treatments to reduce the risk of re-offending. Countries such as Germany and the Czech Republic also offer other long-term, permanent surgical options. Have the Ministries looked into and considered whether these options may be included as supplementary measures for such offenders in Singapore? What are the Ministries’ views on these measures?

Finally, I would like to ask how many cases of convicts have repeated sex offences after their release?

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

3.27 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

Mr Speaker, maintenance of law and order, and an effective criminal justice system, are essential components of Singapore’s success. Singapore is internationally renowned as being a safe place to visit, live, work and to do business, and it is important that we continue to protect and uphold the systems and structures that instil this reputation and trust in Singaporeans and foreigners alike.

Mr Speaker, the revisions and enhancements recommended in this Bill are necessary and critical for Singapore's prosperity.

The suggested changes will strengthen our existing legal frameworks, improve law and order, and make it easier to identify, arrest, charge, and detain those committing serious crimes.

Mr Speaker, before I make additional comments on this Bill, I would like to note that I have previously worked as a Probation Officer for the Ministry of Social and Family Development, and I am currently the Head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences.

My clarifications and suggestions are categorised into two areas.

Firstly, I would like to discuss the new legislative framework for FMEs. FMEs involve the collection of physical evidence to support investigations and legal proceedings, including in sexual abuse matters. I am pleased to see that the Bill provides sensible guidance on the timely and sensitive collection of forensic evidence, while protecting the rights of both alleged victims and accused persons.

The proposed legislative additions also satisfactorily cover issues such as consent, explanation of procedures and the roles and functions of police and medical practitioners.

Mr Speaker, I do however, have some questions on the support provided to alleged victims.

First, I understand that in 2023, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) established the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command, which aims to strengthen investigative capabilities, improve victim care processes in sexual crime and family violence cases, and foster closer collaborations with other public agencies.

I would like to know what additional measures are being considered to safeguard children and vulnerable adults who are undergoing FME, including an examination as a result of sexual abuse. Children and vulnerable adults undergoing such an examination may well be distressed, scared and confused, and it is essential that we do all we can to protect the emotional and physical well-being of these people.

Mr Speaker, Singapore currently provides support to victims of crime through the Victim Care Cadre (VCC) Programme. VCC volunteers work with the Police to support victims of crime, including victims of sexual crimes or other serious offences. The volunteers, and I quote from their website, "are trained to provide a listening ear and to look out for these victims who may be struggling to cope in the aftermath of trauma".

The scheme is, however, currently only available to those who ask for assistance. Perhaps it may be appropriate for the scheme to be more widely promoted and actively offered to all victims of crime. Additionally, perhaps it may be appropriate to locate VCC volunteers within the OneSafe Centre, the one-stop abuse forensic examination centre.

Related to this, I would like to know what support is available for victims of sexual abuse who have chosen not to report their concerns to the Police. In such situations, can the victim seek an FME without making a formal Police report. I understand that some countries offer examinations independent of any obligation to report the matter to the police.

Mr Speaker, I also have some questions about the provision to use reasonable force if an alleged perpetrator refuses to participate in an FME.

Forcing anyone to undergo a medical procedure to which they do not consent, raises issues of autonomy, dignity and the authority of the state and should not be undertaken without rigorous checks and balances.

Mr Speaker, I therefore seek clarification about the processes that are in place to protect the rights of people who may be forced to undergo an FME, including, in particular, the rights of young people and vulnerable adults.

It is also important that people who do consent to an FME have the legal capacity to do so and are provided with sufficient information to give informed consent.

Accordingly, I also seek clarifications about the processes that are in place to (a) ensure that people are fully informed about what their FME will involve; (b) guide those who may have limited understanding of what they are consenting or not consenting to; and (c) protect those who may lack capacity to give informed consent.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to discuss SEPP.

Mr Speaker, there have been several instances where ex-offenders have, upon release from prison, re-offended, sometimes committing serious violent or sexual offences. It is, therefore, sensible to consider what measures are needed to protect the public from such dangerous offenders, and the proposed changes afford this protection in a number of ways.

First, SEPP streamlines sentencing options. Certainty in law is paramount to ensuring justice and, by providing a single sentencing model with a range of levers, we can better deliver targeted interventions based on assessed risks. This certainty needs to be articulated clearly to those who are sentenced under this order.

Second, this sentencing option may serve as a deterrent, potentially preventing individuals from offending or reoffending.

Third, capping the age for such sentences at 21 is a positive move, as this allows young people assessed to be at low risk of reoffending the option of rehabilitation within the community.

In light of the evolving crime and criminality landscape it is necessary to protect the public from dangerous offenders. In the process of doing so, it is equally important that we balance crime control with due process rights and rule of law.

Mr Speaker, criminal law in Singapore is underpinned by four principles: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. These principles stand as the cornerstone of our sentencing system and serve as a guide for determining consequences for those convicted of an offence.

On the principle of rehabilitation, I do seek clarification on where those on SEPP are to be housed. Singapore Prison Service has evolved into a leading correctional agency, embodying the principles of safe and secure custody, evidence-informed rehabilitation programmes, and effective community supervision for released prisoners. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of Singapore Prison Service and recognise the important role played by the Captains of Lives and their ongoing commitment to building a safer, more rehabilitative society for us all.

Mr Speaker, many of those who are placed on SEPP may have committed violent offences, including violent sexual offences, and some of those may have diagnosed mental health disorders. This group, known as mentally disordered sexual offenders, include sub-groups with significant psychiatric comorbidities, including psychotic disorders, personality disorders, intellectual disabilities and substance abuse disorders.

Given the unique needs of this group of prisoners and their potential long-term or permanent incarceration, I suggest that they be accommodated within dedicated housing units separate from other prisoners, and that they receive specialised and multidisciplinary support to enhance their rehabilitation.

Additionally, it is important that prisoners on SEPP are subject to oversight by independent visitors who are authorised to meet with prisoners to assess the level of care they are receiving and whether they have any concerns or complaints.

I understand that a similar scheme is already in place in the form of Board of Visitors for Community Rehabilitation Centres and Drug Rehabilitation Centres, and perhaps this scheme could be extended to include those facilities that will house prisoners on SEPP.

Mr Speaker, my final comments relate to prisoners released on licence. My question is whether there are provisions for such prisoners to be placed within a specialised halfway house to support them with their reintegration process. Additionally, is it feasible for the committee that considers applications for release on licence to include independent advocates to represent the best interests of the prisoner.

Mr Speaker, in 2015, the Singapore Prison Service introduced Restorative Practices into their rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, thereby fostering a culture in which prisoners assume responsibility for their behaviours and enhance personal relationships through meaningful interactions with others.

I would also like to suggest implementing the principles and practices of restorative justice to increase the understanding of victim impact and offer greater community support for prisoners who are willing to participate in a restorative process.

For instance, Circles of Support and Accountability, implemented in Canada, some regions of the United States, England, Wales and Scotland, are a community-based restorative initiative that aims to prevent further offending by offenders, including sexual offenders.

Mr Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, the proposed changes will promote justice, empower victims, prevent revictimisation and foster a safer society, and I conclude in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

3.38 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in support of the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

This Bill seeks to enhance Singapore's criminal justice system by introducing measures to strengthen crime-fighting capabilities and granting more authority to the Police and other LEAs. The major measures include establishing a new legislative framework for FMEs and granting the power to further detain dangerous and high-risk offenders who pose a threat to the public.

Sir, I recognise the need for LEAs to have greater power to conduct criminal investigations efficiently and effectively. However, I am concerned about protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable individuals, particularly those with disabilities or special needs or those with limited education. These may be the accused or they may be victims of the crime. Some of these vulnerable persons may not fully understand or be able to articulate their thoughts and feelings. Others may not grasp the implications of their actions due to their disabilities. Some are also at risk of being exploited or coerced into illegal activities, such as acting as drug mules or committing crimes under the influence of others. Even when they speak what they believe is the truth, some of them may not comprehend the consequences of their words or actions. Therefore, it is crucial to safeguard their safety, dignity, rights and well-being while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

There are well-recognised best practices for protecting the rights, dignity and well-being of vulnerable persons within criminal justice systems everywhere. I would like to outline some of these best practices and seek the Ministry's feedback on their implementation in our country's justice system.

First, investigations should employ specialised interview techniques that are trauma-informed, age-appropriate and sensitive to disabilities.

Second, interviews should be conducted in a safe and supportive environment. For several years now, the Singapore Government's Appropriate Adult Scheme has allowed independent, trained volunteers, that is, the Appropriate Adults (AAs), to accompany young or vulnerable individuals during interviews with LEAs. A number of the AAs who are volunteers are generalists trained probably once only upon recruitment and they play a limited role in safeguarding the rights and well-being of vulnerable persons. I, therefore, seek an update from the Ministry on the Appropriate Adult Scheme's current status, including the number of volunteers deployed, their profiles, the training provided, accomplishments, challenges and some future plans for advancement of this important scheme.

Third, there is also a best practice where personnel are trained in handling disabilities and other vulnerable persons, training for persons within the Police force, medical teams conducting, for example, the forensic medical examinations, and agencies like the Public Defence Office. Vulnerable individuals must have access to legal representation who understands their specific needs. It is essential to provide specialised training for law enforcement and the judiciary on how to handle cases involving such individuals sensitively. These training programmes should be mandatory, ongoing and available both in person and online. Ideally, specialised units with experts in child psychology, geriatrics, disability services and trauma should be created to offer advice, assistance and referrals in investigations involving vulnerable individuals.

Last of all, the best practice of interagency collaborations. Interagency coordination and collaboration should be further enhanced to provide appropriate and streamlined support for vulnerable persons. For instance, the participation rate and useability of the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Developmental Disability Registry could be improved to aid the criminal justice system. Another possibility is this: for incarcerated individuals with developmental and other related disabilities, appropriate facilities should be established, separate from those for typical offenders. We can tap on the learnings in Singapore from the youth rehabilitation programmes run by Trybe, remove the age limit and learn from them a good rehabilitation programme, and also halfway houses operated by various social service agencies.

In summary, I would to seek, therefore, the Ministry's considered responses to better adoption of the measures that I have mentioned to safeguard the interests of vulnerable individuals in our criminal justice system: (a) the use of specialised interview techniques; (b) enhancing the Appropriate Adults Scheme for a safe and supportive interview setting; (c) more trained personnel in LEAs, including the Public Defence Office; and (d) better interagency coordination and collaborations for better outcomes.

In conclusion, Sir, the criminal justice process must effectively protect vulnerable individuals, especially those with disabilities, special needs or limited education, from the point of arrest, through interviews, trials, sentences and incarceration. Failing to do so would constitute an injustice. Nonetheless, I still support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

3.44 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer who takes up criminal matters from time to time.

Sir, the current Bill introduces several amendments to criminal procedure, several of which I am supportive. The move to codify the long-standing Kadar obligations derived from common law, for example, will give statutory footing to criminal disclosure practices that AGC and defence lawyers have already been practising for many years.

This having been said, I am concerned with three of the proposed amendments. The first is the new sentencing regime under SEPP. The second is the expansion of Police powers as regards carrying out searches without warrants. The third is the amendments related to FMEs.

Let me begin with my concerns on the SEPP. The SPP and the more severe SEPP framework replace the existing Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD) regimes.

The CT and PD regimes apply to repeat offenders whom the Court believes may continue to be a threat to the public if they were to be sentenced per the sentencing frameworks for the offences currently before the Court.

The Court substitutes the sentences they would have received for their offences with a separate term of incarceration, that includes rehabilitative measures during the period of incarceration and that may include supervised early release into the community.

The CT regime applies to offenders aged 18 years and above, with a term of between five and 14 years; and the PD regime applies to offenders aged 30 years and above, with a more substantial term of between seven and 20 years, as it is intended to apply to more serious offenders.

There are two important features of these regimes. First, the terms are imposed by the Court after having considered all of the evidence before it, including expert reports. Second, there is finality to the terms, that is, they are a for a fixed duration so there is certainty as to the period of incarceration.

The SEPP, on the other hand, is quite different. First, there is no certainty as to the period of incarceration. While the Court would pronounce a minimum sentence when sentencing the offender to the SEPP, the actual period of incarceration may be extended indefinitely by the Minister, who will be advised, of course, by a panel of experts.

This jars with at least what is my understanding of the process of the larger process of how sentencing comes about. Parliament enacts laws that define both offences and the punishment for them. These punishments are often enunciated as ranges of fines and/or imprisonment terms and are based on Parliament's view of the severity of each offence and what the offender needs to do to fulfil the retributive angle of justice. The punishments are balanced against other offences across laws and updated from time to time. When an offence is committed, the Courts look at the range of punishment prescribed and the facts of the matter, determine the severity and apply a sentence within the range. Where the sentence includes a term of imprisonment, there is a single point term, which presents the maximum time that a person may spend in prison. The prisons may apply restitution, such that the offender actually serves less than the actual sentence. But there is a single-point sentence that the offender knows he will not go beyond.

The idea is that the Courts determine the punishment commensurate to the offence and once that person has completed his sentence, his retributive debt to the state can be considered to have been satisfied and he can reclaim his liberty.

With the SEPP regime, however, an offender could continue to be deprived of his liberty even up to the duration of his natural life, even after he has paid his retributive debt and not by decision of the Courts.

My second concern is precisely this, that the power to continue to deprive this person from his liberty lays in the hands of the Executive and not the Judiciary. Under the SEPP, the Minister may release the offender on license after he has served the minimum term or he may decide to continue to detain the offender up to life, of course, after having taken advice from a panel of experts.

I am curious and would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to why the regime was structured in this way, instead of following the regime for the safe custody of a person acquitted for unsoundness of mind under section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Under the Penal Code, any person found to be of unsound mind at the time of the commission of an offence is to be acquitted. Such a person, having been found by the Court to be of unsound mind should naturally be assessed and be considered for remaining in the custody of the Government as he may pose a threat to himself or to people around him.

In this regard, section 252 provides that the Court is to order that such persons be kept in safe custody and reported to the Minister. Within one month, a designated medical practitioner is to assess that person and propose measures to be taken to minimise the risk of him causing harm to himself or to others. The Minister may then make one of several orders, including continuing to confine that person for a period not exceeding 12 months, provided that the total period of confinement does not exceed the notional sentence that would have been imposed on the person if he had not been acquitted for unsoundness of mind.

In the event that the Minister assesses that the person should continue to be confined beyond the initial 12-month period, the Minister must make an application to the Court. As such, the decision to continue to confine the person remains with the Court.

If the SEPP was designed in a similar manner, it would have had to include just one additional step from the current regime proposed in the Bill, that the Minister would have to make an application to Court for each 12-month extension.

In my view, this would be appropriate, as both regimes apply to extra-sentence situations. For section 252, there is, in fact, no sentence because the person would have been acquitted and for the SEPP, it would be further confinement after the minimum sentence had been completed.

I acknowledge that the SEPP is, in and of itself, a sentence, that is a Court would have to sentence an offender to be subject to the SEPP. But does this come close to an abdication of the sentencing powers of the Court at the end of the minimum period of the sentence to the executive?

In this regard, the principle of the Court's role in sentencing articulated by the hon the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in his keynote address at the Sentencing Conference in October 2022 is instructive and I quote his honour: "...although Parliament may determine the scope of the courts' sentencing power through the legislative scheme that it prescribes, including by specifying mandatory or minimum sentences, the sentencing function of the courts cannot be enlisted to disguise what in substance is a decision of the Executive."

In this regard, a salient clarification is what standard of proof would the Minister apply when considering the report of the Detention Review Board? Must he be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as a Court would have to be in imposing a sentence?

I note that the hon Minister of State had said the approach by the Detention Review Board will be scientific and rigorous, and she had also shared some of the criteria. But this is the report of the Detention Review Board. How would the Minister look at it and what is the standard that the Minister is expected to treat it?

Furthermore, would the Minister also produce a publicly available report that will justify and explain why the offender should be further confined?

I also acknowledge that the SEPP would apply to a very narrow class of offences, those stipulated in Schedule 7. These are very serious offences, like culpable homicide and rape. And I agree that the Minister's concern is very real. In fact, in comments that the Minister made to the media last week, he raised the same example he raised today of an offender who had served a sentence of 19 years jail and had been given 24 strokes of the cane for having committed statutory rape of his six-year-old stepdaughter and who, within three years of being released, had been convicted of then sexually assaulting two of his grandnieces and he was subsequently sentenced to the maximum 20 years of Preventive Detention. If he was subject to an SEPP and had been assessed to not have been rehabilitated, he could have still be detained and we could have avoided having two additional innocent victims.

But the question that arises then is this: in whose hands should lay the power to deprive a person of his liberty?

My view is that it is the preserve of the courts and that the abdication of this prerogative should occur only in very narrow circumstances. I can accept, for example, that in matters of natural security, where there may be urgency and because the Minister is himself the expert and also because of the grave consequences of delaying to act, that the Minister be empowered to take certain actions to detain certain persons.

But even in that situation, there are checks on the Minister's powers. The Internal Security Act (ISA) provides a role of the President to play in detentions under that Act, including in some circumstances empowering the President to make decisions with personal discretion. The bench is also involved in the advisory committee reviewing a detention under the ISA.

But this important review and oversight function does not appear to be sufficiently articulated in the SEPP after the completion of the minimum sentence. This is despite that the scenarios we would encounter in the case of an SEPP would not have the same urgency nor secrecy of information as we would see in the ISA.

The reports for consideration as to whether to continue to detain an offender can be prepared in advance. There should not be concern over secrecy as this is a matter of public protection and the information regarding the offender would already be a matter of public record as he had gone through the court process at trial.

In this regard, I had intended to seek the Minister's clarification on whether there would still be a role for the bench and lawyers to play, for example, in the constitution of the panel of experts. But Minister had pre-emptively already answered this when he said that retired Judges and lawyers would be included.

Could the Minister consider that the chairperson of the panel should always be a member of the bench and that legal experts should also, as a matter of course be included in it?

Before I go on to the other two sets of amendments, I also do note that both the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the hon Minister of State had said that the Minister's decision is subject to judicial review and this provides some comfort.

Sir, the other two sets of amendments I am concerned about are the expansion of Police powers as regards searches without warrants and FMEs.

Once the Bill is passed, the Police will now be empowered to conduct searches without warrants when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence that may aid in their investigations is in the possession of or power of within the power of a suspect of an arrestable offence.

Based on the illustrations in the Bill, the Police may search a suspect's place of residence without warrant. They may search the premises of another person if the suspect is at that second person's premises and they may even check the workplaces of the suspect. These are very wide powers for searches to be conducted without sanction by the courts via a warrant.

I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the following points.

First, following the passing of this Bill, in what circumstances would the Police now have to obtain a warrant from the courts before carrying out a search?

Second, what are the safeguards that will be implemented to ensure that these wide powers are not abused? For example, when would a person under investigation be considered to be a suspect on which the new provisions could be used and what would constitute "reason to believe"?

I hope these would be made public so as to allay concerns about how these powers would be wielded.

As regard to FMEs, I am broadly supportive of the move to make it an offence out of the refusal to submit to an FME as part of Police investigations and for there to be adverse inferences drawn in the event that a person refuses to do so. This will help the Police obtain evidence that is often determinative in a case.

I am, however, concerned about the new section 40I which will allow Police officers to use reasonable force to carry out FMEs which, based on the press release by the Ministry, could be used to obtain, amongst other things, hair samples and buccal or cheek swaps.

Again, I would like to ask the Minister what are the safeguards that would be implemented to ensure that such sanction of force is not abused. Could the Minister elaborate on when a person would be considered a "suspect", whether internal approval would have to be sought by investigating officers before resorting to force and what exactly may force be used to obtain?

I would also like to ask whether the Minister had considered including a provision to require that the Police first obtain a warrant from the courts before using force and why such an institutional safeguard was not included.

In all three of these amendments, there could have been a greater role for the Court to play. Fundamental to rule of law is the principle of separation of powers and the need for different parts of Government to check on each other. In particular, it is important that the Judiciary plays a role when there are wide powers granted to the executive.

Sir, I look forward to the Minister's response on my clarifications. But notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.58 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will expand the range of sentencing options for serious crimes and improve the criminal court processes.

I have three sets of clarifications on the changes to the criminal case disclosure process and on the SPP and SEPP.

My first set of clarifications is on the changes to the criminal case disclosure process. Under the Bill, where a documentary exhibit in a case for the prosecution includes an image of an individual's genital or anal region, or a woman's breasts, the prosecution is not required to serve the exhibit on the Defence. Instead, upon the Defence's request, the prosecution must arrange for the defence to view the exhibit at a Police station or a prescribed place.

The photograph may be just one of many pages in a long documentary exhibit. In such a situation, can the Minister clarify if it is open to the prosecution to serve a redacted form of the exhibit containing the image where the image is omitted? The Defence then only has to arrange to view the unredacted image in the exhibit at the Police station or prescribed place. This may be a more proportionate approach where the Defence has a set of the rest of the documentary exhibit.

Additionally, the new section 221B(1) requires the Prosecution to serve on the defence the statement of any material witness that relates to the charges. Can the Minister clarify what is considered a “material” witness?

My second set of clarifications is on how an offender’s suitability for SPP and SEPP will be assessed.

On the SPP, can the Minister share what other factors, apart from physical and mental conditions, will be taken into consideration when assessing an offender’s suitability for the SPP? Can the Minister share if the factors for assessing an offender’s suitability for the SPP and SEPP are identical? If not, what are the differences? Can the Minister also clarify whether there is any limit to the number of periods for which the court can remand an offender in custody under sections 304A(3) and 304B(5)?

The maximum length of each period is clearly circumscribed – one month for SPP and two months for SEPP – to enshrine some fairness in the process. But the number of periods does not seem constrained by the same safeguard. This opens the possibility that an offender gets remanded indefinitely while the entity preparing the report – the Commissioner of Prisoners for SPP and the psychiatrist for SEPP – fails to submit it in a timely fashion.

My third set of clarifications is on provisions for offenders subject to SPP and SEPP. Can the Minister share what resources or programmes will be provided to rehabilitate offenders on SPP or SEPP? What steps will be taken to mitigate the risk that being put on SPP or SEPP may signal that the offender is beyond rehabilitation? Can the Minister share if any frameworks will be introduced for the assessment by experts, review by Minister, and representations by the offender, at the end of the SEPP minimum period? Finally, can the Minister share what alternative measures the Government considered in place of the SPP and SEPP and what factors did they take into account when deciding on this approach?

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

4.02 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. The proposed amendments represent a significant move towards ensuring that our criminal justice system remains effective, fair and transparent. In recent years, several egregious cases that have highlighted the need for a comprehensive review of our criminal justice system.

Of the many faces that criminality can take, sexual crimes remain a key concern in Singapore. There are close to 10,000 reports of sexual assault between 2019 and 2022. The number of sexual assault cases involving victims below 16 years old allegedly committed by family members increased by 61% in 2019 to 2022.

At its core, the Bill aims to strengthen the state’s levers to tackle crime, especially those that I mentioned earlier, and I will be speaking on three key aspects: first, introduction of new sentences for public protection; second, the FME Legislative Framework; and third, enhancing the powers of police and law enforcement agencies.

First, on the new sentencing framework for public protection. The impetus for the proposed law is apparent in wake of the alarming egregious cases. As mentioned by the Minister earlier, in 2001, a diagnosed paedophile served a term of 19 years jail and received 24 strokes of the cane for the rape of his stepdaughter. Within three years of his release from prison, he sexually assaulted his two grandnieces. For his depravity, he was sentenced to the maximum 20 years’ preventive detention. And just last year, a man was sentenced to 18 years’ preventive detention and 12 strokes of the cane for, amongst other charges, aggravated sexual assault. This was also shortly after he had served his 16-year jail term for rape.

Had such perpetrators remained behind bars, more innocent lives would have been spared from the lifelong trauma of sexual abuse. These are exactly the type of offenders that the new SPP and the SEPP aims to tackle.

With the new sentencing regime, it allows for the Courts to better protect the public. It also provides the necessary flexibility to strike a balance between punitive measures and rehabilitation. These amendments will provide the Courts, and not the Government, with the necessary levers to tailor sentences based on the severity of offences, for public protection.

It is notable that the SEPP is limited to serious offences, such as culpable homicide, rape, sexual offences involving vulnerable persons such as persons with mental disabilities and minors; and the courts may consider reports, that is, risk assessment reports by appointed professionals. Could the Ministry consider mandating such reports for all SEPP-related sentences? I believe that this would strike a better balance between the rights of individuals and the pursuit of justice.

Further, the SEPP regime provides that if the offender is assessed to pose a risk to society and therefore would continue to be imprisoned at the end of the SEPP term, regular reviews will be done to assess their suitability for release. Can the Ministry consider enshrining the frequency of this review into the legislation? This would ensure that whilst the protection of the public rightly remains at the forefront, the individual rights and liberties of these offenders are still given due consideration.

Next, on the new FME legislative framework. FMEs are critical to bringing perpetrators to justice, especially in the case of sexual offences. The time sensitivity of FMEs is paramount since forensic evidence can rapidly deteriorate, degrade, or become contaminated, leaving no viable substitutes. The FME, intimately connected with privacy, dignity, and the pursuit of truth, demands a careful recalibration of our legal approach.

Under the FME framework, the police now have the express power to require accused persons to undergo FME where relevant to an investigation. It is also an offence for accused persons to refuse to undergo the FME without reasonable excuse, and the Courts may also draw negative inferences in such cases if a trial is to be held. Could the Ministry clarify under what circumstances would the refusal be done under a “reasonable excuse”?

There are safeguards to the conducting of the FME, which include the requirement to ensure that there is no danger to the individual and the requirement for qualified medical professionals to conduct physical medical examinations and the collection of invasive samples, save for blood samples by way of pricking a finger.

A key safeguard proposed by the Ministry is implementing measures to minimise leakage and unauthorised sharing of materials obtained through the FME procedure. Could the Ministry clarify what measures, cybersecurity or otherwise, it will take to ensure that these photographs are held in the utmost confidence? What are the measures to protect against unauthorised collection of visual evidence such as photographs?

Further, under the proposed section 40H, informed consent will generally be required from the alleged victims and/or their authorised decision-maker, depending on the age of the alleged victim. Would the Ministry consider developing standardized guidelines for obtaining informed consent for FME procedures? Further, under section 40H(1)(b), in the case where the alleged victim is between 14 and 16 years old, both the alleged victim and the alleged victim’s parent or guardian consent would be required for the FME. Could the Ministry kindly clarify the rationale for this?

Finally, on the enhancement of the powers of police and law enforcement agencies by updating section 34 of the CPC. In the context of criminal investigations, where time is often of the essence, it becomes imperative to equip the police and law enforcement agencies with powers that allow for swift and decisive action.

Under the proposed amendments, the police will be empowered to conduct searches without a warrant when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence is in the possession or power of a suspect of an arrestable offence, allowing searches of arrested persons at the point of arrest for safety reasons. In this regard, could the Ministry clarify how it will ensure the judicious use of these enhanced powers by the police to prevent overreach and protect the rights of individuals? What are the review and training mechanisms in place to guide officers?

It is also proposed for the powers of non-police law enforcement agencies to be enhanced to deal with matters arising from predicate offences under their purview. This is especially important in ensuring that the suitable law enforcement agency deals with the matters they are most familiar with, which is important to maximise operational efficiency considering Singapore’s size.

Mr Speaker, as we navigate these amendments, let us remember that the success of these changes lies not only in their crafting but in the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders. We are sculpting a legal framework that allows us, as members of this House, to protect the public. Speaker Sir, notwithstanding the suggestions mentioned, I rise to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.09 pm until 4.30 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.

4.30 pm

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin, given that there have been several references to psychiatrists in the context of risk assessment in a forensic setting, I would like to declare that I am a psychiatrist and a member of the Section of Forensic Psychiatry, College of Psychiatrists of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) plays a crucial role in Singapore’s criminal justice system. It outlines the processes and rules that govern the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases within our legal system.

A robust CPC ensures the protection of individual rights and safeguards and access to a fair and just trial. It also provides legal certainty and predictability, outlines accountability of law enforcement and judicial authorities and contributes to social order and stability.

When effectively and efficiently administered, it also plays a role in deterrence of criminal behaviour, respect for the rule of law and civil liberties, and strengthens public confidence in the administration of justice.

I have two sets of clarifications as part of the changes proposed in this Bill. The first set of clarifications relates to the introduction of the new Division 5 – Forensic Medical Evaluation, of Part 4 of the Bill, under Information to Police and Powers of Investigation. The second set of clarifications relates to the introduction of the new sections 304A and 304B, under Sentence for Public Protection and Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in principle, I agree with the amendment to articulate the powers relating to FME.

Under the proposed section 40H, there is a distinction for standards of consent for medical evaluation drawn over three groups of alleged victims: (a) alleged victims below 14 years old requiring the consent of a parent or guardian; (b) alleged victims between 14 and 16 years old requiring the consent of a parent or guardian and that of the alleged victim; and (c) alleged victims above 16 years old requiring only the consent of the alleged victim.

Firstly, given that, in the context of Police investigations, FME may cover both accused persons and alleged victims, may I ask whether these standards for consent also apply to accused persons within the same age ranges as well? If this is not the case, could the Ministry clarify why the same consent standards may not apply to both alleged victims and accused persons?

Secondly, relating to FME and, more broadly, in medical settings, doctors would consider strongly seeking parental or guardian consent for anyone below 21 years of age seeking medical treatment though there could be unique considerations that may inform such a person’s ability to give consent at a younger age than that. Notwithstanding the forensic setting, it remains the case that this is a medical evaluation, and I would like to seek clarification whether this will be considered the legal standard henceforth relating to consent of medical evaluations in general.

If this is not the case, I would like to seek clarifications from the Ministry why a forensic medical evaluation for alleged victims would be different from non-forensic medical evaluations in terms of allowable age of consent and the ages to which permission from a parent or guardian is required. This Bill appears to be more permissive to allow individuals to consent at a younger age by themselves from 16 years old rather than at 18 or 21 years old, at least to the alleged victim, based on the current proposed amendments.

Thirdly, Mr Deputy Speaker, under sections 40I to K, regarding refusal for FME and use of reasonable force in certain cases, I agree that refusal for FME could constitute an offence and can appreciate the need for reasonable force to retrieve samples or conduct FME for certain cases.

However, in this context, other than a retrieval of blood through a blood draw, which is considered as invasive, would it be possible to list the body samples that are considered non-invasive in the context of a non-consenting FME for greater clarity? For example, would retrieval of other body samples like urine, saliva, head hair and root of head hair, sample of fingernail or toenail be considered invasive or non-invasive? This is not yet clear in the current amendment.

In section 40E, these are all articulated as body samples, but only the sample of blood is explicitly considered as an invasive sample. Perhaps, to retrieve urine and stools, one would require access to intimate parts and, therefore, this is not allowed under section 40I but may I clarify what about hair, nails and saliva? Would a probing swab to the mouth or nose for saliva or bodily fluids, or pulling of a hair sample at its root be considered invasive?

Given that the type of samples permitted for a consenting FME are already articulated in section 40E, for clarity, it would be helpful to clarify what samples are permitted with use of reasonable force on a non-consenting person and also considered non-invasive.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to my clarifications on new sections 304A, SPP, and 304B, SEPP.

I begin by unequivocally and categorically stating that the crimes for which the proposed sections 304A and 304B cover are heinous, disgraceful and reprehensible in the strongest terms.

These crimes have a long-lasting impact on the victims, in terms of physical and emotional trauma, the psychological effects on their mental well-being, their loss of security and trust towards significant others, and how they potentially view current and future relationships as well. In my work as a clinician, I also see victims of such trauma permanently scarred to the extent that they are unable to form meaningful relationships nor are they able to work, and some even struggle with the need for psychiatric support and longer-term therapy. These crimes are abominable beyond measure and have no place in our society.

However, in deliberating this change and the introduction of these two sections, I take a leaf from the document “Sentencing in Singapore” guide published by MinLaw and MHA on their website, wherein it articulates four evergreen sentencing principles: deterrence, rehabilitation, proportionate punishment and prevention. The same guideline also articulates the different types of sentences, including imprisonment, fines, caning, community-based sentences, corrective training, preventive detention and the death penalty, and that rehabilitative potential is also assessed in the context of Propensity for Reform as well as the Nature and Gravity of the Offence.

In these proposed sections, I would like to request clarifications over three areas, some of which have also been addressed by the Minister previously.

First, could the Minister explain the principles behind the selected offences in the Seventh Schedule under SEPP? In our world of widespread Internet and electronic use, the potential of sexual crimes relating to use of intimate images, recordings and voyeurism, as well as gaining access to, producing, distributing and selling child abuse material do have potential for harm to the victims and members of the public not unlike some of the offences already highlighted in the Seventh Schedule. Sometimes, these offences, indeed, far outstrip the extent of impact and harm that current offences included in the Seventh Schedule may pose and I seek greater clarity on how these offences have been chosen.

Second, I would like to gain clarification over what is envisioned as the intended gain of SPP and SEPP, and how will this eventually be measured? Are current sentencing frameworks not enough to address adequately both retributive and restorative aspects of justice for the offenders today, no matter how egregious their crimes may be?

Third, what are the numbers of current and ex-offenders this Bill could impact and how many of them could qualify for SPP and/or SEPP at their next offence?

If the numbers are small, could we not consider a greater amount of resources, monitoring and enforceability for our community sentencing options, release orders, detention orders as well as employment placement and preparation schemes, rather than relying on the hon Minister’s discretion to detain such individuals up to the natural life of the prisoner, as in SEPP?

Could we structure interventions better and amalgamate the hybrid use of prison sentences with Community Orders, Mandatory Treatment Orders, use of electronic monitoring and Day Reporting Orders better? These could still achieve the intended outcome of public protection and mitigate risk when employed with greater oversight and supervision.

If the numbers are, indeed, sizeable, then would it not be telling of how much more we need to do in conducting treatment, as well as rehabilitative and reintegrative programmes back to the community, especially for this sub-group of offenders of violent crimes and sexual harms? Would it be possible then to focus on doing this better instead of introducing SPP and/or SEPP?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether the weight of the introduction of section 304B especially, in the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection, consider too strongly the principle of Deterrence and Prevention, when compared to Proportionality in Punishment and Rehabilitation.

I do have reservations relating to SEPP specifically, its achievable gains and proportionality in the sentencing framework, as well as its encroachment into civil liberties, even if it is reserved for the most heinous and predatory among us. I wonder whether there are alternatives possible and yet to be considered within the existing structure of our legal provisions to suitably manage the risk and still protect the public.

Mr Deputy Speaker, pending clarifications from the Ministry, less the SEPP at least at this juncture, I support all other aspects of the amendments to the Act as proposed by the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

4.41 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's reputation as one of the safest countries in the world is a testament to our criminal justice system and the dedication of our law enforcement officers. We are fortunate to live in a society where the trust between administrators and citizens allows us to engage in critical discourse. It is our duty to question, deliberate and ensure that any changes to our legal framework are just, balanced, equitable and respectful of individual rights, even as we seek to protect the common good.

I wish to make two main points on the Bill.

Firstly, the empowerment of the Police to conduct searches without a warrant is a substantial change. It would benefit this House for us to have a greater appreciation of the underlying problems that then called for this solution. I appreciate and understand the need for our Police Force to have levers that aim to protect the safety and security of Singaporeans. However, searches without warrants have had unintended, negative consequences in some other jurisdictions with different operationalisation of this policy. The significant impact these measures have had on vulnerable communities in some such countries is worth noting. While I appreciate Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam's clarification in her speech that the powers do not amount to stop and frisk in the US, where according to the New York Police Department (NYPD)'s annual reports, in 2022, 15,102 stops were recorded, but 9,750 were eventually not arrested or given a summons, at 65%. Some studies of warrantless searches and similar programmes have also found that persons of minority descent tend to be stopped more frequently than majority ethnicity individuals, even after controlling for variability and certain profiling estimates of crime participation. It would be important for us, as a society, to protect against profiling.

Sir, our Police officers discharge their duties with professionalism and fulfil their duties in upholding the law with due care and consideration. While this continues to be true, given the extended powers and the impact it could have on the trust between our people and the Police force, if misused, even by accident, we must enquire about the safeguards in place to prevent potential unlawful use of this power and consideration on providing recourse to those who may feel unfairly searched. In the case of Mah vs AG, the appellant highlighted, in obiter dicta, that when a Police officer makes a decision, in this case, to make an arrest, his decision relies on his own common understanding, his own biases and his own experience as a Police officer.

Even with the best of intentions, law enforcement is, ultimately, in the hands of individuals and, sometimes, things can go wrong, especially when officers are required to make difficult split-second decisions. I would like to ask what was the cost-benefit analysis of these amendments and the gravity of its impact on the trust between the public and Police force. What measures will be in place to prevent unfair accusations against Police officers as well who are discharging their duties?

I believe that we have a sensible force and one that annexed their duties to the rule of law. But I also ask that we consider the realities of the systems we design and the way they may impact vulnerable communities.

In this same Bill, the proposed legislative framework for FME specifies that only Police officers holding at least the rank of Inspector have the power to require inspections involving intimate parts. If I understand it correctly, the proposed amendment to section 34 suggests that this search, on the other hand, is afforded to all officers. This individual discretion may open Police officers to accusations of biasness. A better protection could be for that permission to search perhaps coming from a higher rank.

The public would also be keen to know how these searches could be applied. A search without warrant is performed in countries for some instances, such as the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and India. It is usually performed with the caveat that it is done to save life and limb and prevent serious damage to property, including searches for weapons on a person.

At present, our Police have limited powers of search. However, it is unclear what the newer approach would be with this new power.

Finally, given that this is a recent development and members of the public may not be aware of these new powers, there is potential for misunderstanding. In particular, members of the public who are vulnerable or face communication challenges, may have difficulty understanding this. Should they not be appropriately informed, processes to manage them should be in place to mitigate potential trauma or misunderstanding. Indeed, the ordinary citizen has nothing to fear. What we do want to prevent are anxieties introduced by the perceived loss of privacy.

Some further questions I have include, firstly, could MHA share with the House why the search without warrant amendments are being put forth now, the trade-offs considered and why this is needed when our Police force have long demonstrated their ability to be effective without this provision?

Under the Bill, obstructing a Police officer from a lawful search becomes an arrestable offence. What protections will be afforded to citizens who believe they are being searched unfairly? How will an officer determine reason to believe and what are the standards? Will there be an opportunity for clarification before someone is deemed obstructive? Who holds the authority to conduct searches or authorise searches for persons with special needs, for example, and how will special care be taken for these individuals?

Finally, what are the public communication measures in place to help the public understand these challenges?

My second point of concern pertains to the enhanced FME examinations, particularly in cases involving serious sexual offences.

Sir, I have spoken up for victim survivors a number of times in this House and it cannot be overstated that investigations into allegations of sexual crimes are a harrowing experience. Victims are compelled to recall traumatic memories and it is not uncommon for them to take a considerable amount of time before finding the strength to speak up.

Even so, and despite enhanced sentences for certain sexual crimes taking effect from March 2022, many feel that sentences meted out to sexual offenders are too low and do not do much to deter others from committing similar acts. There is also little comfort to victim survivors if the perpetrator is released in just a few months. All this is amidst the social stigma which many survivor victims face, despite such sexual assaults or violence not being due to their own actions but rather malicious perpetrators.

Evidence provided by FMEs can be extremely valuable in constructing a case or, conversely, could be exculpatory, should a suspect be found not guilty of the crime. In either scenario, I agree that the FME constitutes an integral part of the Police procedures and toolkit.

Newspapers have reported on some of these cases. Time is of the essence for law enforcement services. Medical evidence, such as DNA, is time-sensitive and can degrade, potentially being washed away by the accused, if given the opportunity. It is crucial for law enforcement to conduct FMEs as expeditiously as possible to bring wrongdoers to justice.

In February 2000, Ms Chua, 27, was raped and found in Bukit Batok Nature Park with her clothes next to her. She eventually succumbed to her injuries and her assailant was never apprehended.

Conversely, in the case of Lim Chun Wing vs Public Prosecutor, Lim broke into the victim's house, assaulted and raped her before fleeing. He was arrested on the same day and FME conducted on him revealed the victim's DNA on his genitals. Such examinations can also solve cold cases, perhaps bringing some form of closure to family of victims who suffered years ago.

While we acknowledge the critical role of FMEs in obtaining forensic evidence, it is important to note that the amendment applies to both accused and victims, although there is different treatment. Questions arise about situations where an accused person may have a legitimate reason for refusal.

I have a few further clarifications. How will the legislation protect against possible unjust penalties for refusal? Are there potential incidents where a minor who is a victim of a sexual crime may have a different preference for the taking of such samples and evidence, as compared to their parents, and how will the issue of consent be handled then?

How will we advise victims or accused persons who are minors regarding the process in a way that is age-appropriate? What are the considerations and processes for working with a victim? The process can be challenging for such victims and it is in the public's interest to know what the provisions are, such as separate rooms, for example, which have been designed with victim care in mind and the involvement of female Police officers exclusively.

Additionally, I would like to inquire about the procedures and practices in place for vulnerable individuals, particularly those with special needs, to ensure that their circumstances are appropriately addressed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the public has a need to understand that these measures are conclusively beneficial and for the necessary protection of life and property, reasons that go beyond administrative ease.

Singapore's safety is a collective achievement, built upon the support and understanding of our citizens, the hard work of men and women who are in law enforcement. Safety is often cited as a key reason why many of us are grateful to live in Singapore. We are well aware that this sometimes requires the relinquishment of certain rights. Yet, we must ensure that the vulnerable are protected and that law-abiding citizens can go about their lives with confidence, secure in the knowledge that they are well-protected.

As we navigate these amendments, let us uphold the principles that have made Singapore safe, such as justice and fairness and respect for each other's rights. We owe it to our citizens – everyday Singaporeans who are law enforcement officers as well, and to future generations, to ensure that the laws that we enact strike a delicate balance between security and liberty. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.

4.52 pm

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. But I have some clarifications that I hope the Minister will be able to address.

Specifically, my concerns are about the new rules for the conduct of FMEs and SEPPs.

I will speak, first, on the new proposed rules on FMEs. FMEs are conducted to obtain forensic evidence which is critical for investigations, particularly those pertaining to serious sexual offences, such as rape. As MinLaw has explained in its press release of 10 January, FMEs are generally seen as an important aspect of modern evidence-gathering and there are simply no substitutes for certain types of specific forensic evidence, for example, when penile swabs need to be taken from accused persons in sexual assault cases, in order to show proof of contact.

These types of evidence are also time-sensitive because they may be lost, degraded or contaminated over a short period of time. All these factors speak in favour of a robust FME regime, but there is also a need to balance these concerns with respect for personal autonomy and notions of consent.

Under the proposed new section 40H of the CPC, it is, quite correctly, very clearly stated that a Police officer may not require an alleged victim to undergo an FME, unless the victim consents to the examination. My first clarification for the Minister relates to the information that is provided to alleged victims in the course of procuring their consent. In order for any kind of consent to be valid and legitimate, an individual must be given sufficient, accurate and relevant information on the actions that are to be taken and on the implications of these actions. Could the Minister provide details on the kinds of information that Police officers will be required to provide to alleged victims when seeking out their consent to carry out FMEs?

Notwithstanding the requirements for the grant of express consent, if the alleged victim is unable to provide consent within a reasonable time due to a physical or mental condition and that delay results in loss, contamination or degradation of the required evidence, the Police are permitted under the new law to seek consent instead from a deputy or donee, on behalf of the alleged victim.

On this point, is the Minister able to share the guidelines that are in place for Police officers to determine whether delays in the conduct of FMEs will result in the loss, degradation or contamination of the evidence concerned? Could the Minister explain how the Police will be trained to determine if delays in carrying out the FMEs will, in fact, result in the loss, degradation or contamination of the evidence?

The explanatory statement to this Bill also refers to a very wide range of conditions that include dementia and learning disabilities, both of which are conditions that can be experienced very differently in terms of severity. For example, a medical diagnosis of dementia does not immediately equate to a loss of capacity. And under our Mental Capacity Act, a person must be assumed to be able to make decisions for themselves, unless it is established that they are unable to do so. On this broad point, I seek three clarifications.

Firstly, can the Minister clarify more specifically the kinds of physical and mental conditions that would be caught by the proposed new section 40H? Secondly, how would the existence of these conditions be established by a Police officer in practice when time is of the essence and the evidence needs to be collected very quickly? Thirdly, what training will Police officers be given to enable them to decide whether a person suffering from a particular physical or mental condition is actually unable to give their consent?

The new FME rules under the proposed section 40H of CPC also list the conditions under which the Police must seek consent from the alleged victim's parent, guardian, deputy or donee, if the alleged victim is personally unable to provide their own consent. The consent of such representatives is, however, not required if delays in carrying out the FME will result in the loss, contamination or degradation of the evidence and the consent cannot be obtained despite all reasonable efforts.

Can the Minister clarify, what the threshold is for such reasonable efforts and how this term would be interpreted? For example, would the term be confined to physical attempts to locate the alleged victim's representative; or would it also potentially apply to a situation where the Police are unable to convince the alleged victim's representative to grant their consent? If the legislation is meant to include the latter situations as well, what are the qualitative factors that are then taken into account by the Police when they decide whether or not reasonable efforts have been made?

The threshold of reasonableness, once again, comes into play for FMEs conducted on accused persons, further to the proposed new section 40I of the CPC. Here, reasonable force may be applied by authorised officers where intimate parts and invasive procedures are not involved. I seek clarification from the Minister on the kind of standard that will be applied in determining what exactly constitutes such reasonable force.

My final clarification on the new FME provisions relates to the proposed section 40G of CPC, which specifies that FMEs involving intimate regions of the body may only be carried out by a woman, if the subject of the examination is also a woman. To this point, is the Minister able to explain how a subject's gender identity will be accounted for and respected?

For example, will the new rules allow a male Police officer or forensic specialist to conduct an FME on a person who is legally male, but identifies as female and has yet to undergo gender confirmation surgery or change their registered sex officially? What will the treatment be for subjects who identify as non-binary in gender? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification on how these kinds of matters would be approached.

I will now move on to the proposed SEPP. This is introduced under the new section 304B of CPC.

The primary stated policy rationale for SEPP is to protect the public from specific types of dangerous offenders, namely, from those who commit serious violent offences, such as culpable homicide and attempted murder, as well as serious sexual offences, such as rape and the sexual penetration of a minor. I acknowledge that the threshold for imposing an SEPP is a very high one.

Amongst other things, the SEPP regime only applies to offenders aged 21 and above at the time of the offence, and the Courts must be satisfied that it is in the interests of the protection of the public that an SEPP be imposed. Before imposing the sentence, the new proposed law requires the Courts to call for and consider a psychiatrist's report as well as any report submitted by the offender or their lawyer on the offender's risk of causing serious physical or sexual harm to others.

That being said, under an SEPP, an offender will be detained for a minimum term of between five and 20 years. At the end of the minimum term, the offender will not be automatically released. But, instead, will only be freed if assessed to no longer pose a threat to the public. This assessment will be made by the Minister for Home Affairs, based on the advice of an expert panel. If the offender is found to be unsuitable for release, they may continue to be detained for an indeterminate period of time. These are extremely severe provisions and I seek three clarifications from the Minister on them.

First, will any clear sentencing guidelines be issued to encourage consistent sentencing by the Courts under the SEPP regime?

Second, what kinds of rehabilitation programmes will an offender be required to attend?

In 2022, the UK House of Commons Justice Committee issued a Report on Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs). This is a scheme in the UK that is somewhat similar to SEPP. In the Report, a joint submission was made from 50 psychologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists who had experience of working with people serving the IPP sentence.

In that submission, various forms of psychological harm were identified as having emerged from the imposition of an indeterminate sentence. The submission states, and I quote, "More recent studies find that people serving an IPP sentence consistently describe mental and emotional deterioration caused by the sentence, including feelings of depression and hopelessness, feeling very anxious, symptoms of paranoia and psychosis, suicidal urges and feeling fundamentally "changed" for the worse".

A study by the UK Ministry of Justice in 2021 noted that, "The rate of self-harm in people serving an IPP sentence is around double that of people serving a life sentence and almost double that of people serving a determinate sentence."

In light of the higher potential for mental health issues among SEPP prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, rehabilitation programmes should be available in quantity and they should be accessible to offenders in a timely manner. I seek the Minister's clarification on the kinds of rehabilitative treatment and mental health support that will be made available to SEPP prisoners as well as their family members.

My third clarification has to do with how the new SEPP regime gels with victim-centric approaches to criminal justice, especially in the realm of violence against women.

In 2014, the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) issued a report to MinLaw entitled AWARE's Recommendations on Sexual Assault Law in Singapore. In that report, AWARE put forward the view, based on its own research and work, that the most urgent priority for policies tackling sexual violence is to improve the processes for investigating cases and achieving convictions. In the experience of AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre as reported in the 2021 AWARE paper, An Omnibus on Gender Equality, formal reports are not made in 70% of cases of sexual violence.

I am given to understand that victim-survivors may choose not to report their cases due to fear of harm or revenge from perpetrators or because they are concerned about the impact of the reporting on such perpetrators. These may be people who are known to them or even be family members. These concerns are actually quite unrelated to the severity of the actual punishments that are meted out to offenders. In more extreme cases, if punishments are overly harsh, victim-survivors who are the subject of coercive control might hesitate to come forward in the first place to report that offences have been committed against them.

As a final point, I seek the Minister's assurance that even if enhanced penalties are introduced under SEPP, that the Government will continue to implement and expand victim-centric and trauma-informed solutions, especially in cases where violence is committed against women.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.

5.03 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, underpinning our reputation as one of the safest cities in the world is the strong rule of law. The robust criminal justice system that we have today is due to our LEAs which work tirelessly to keep Singapore safe and secure.

I note that this Bill contains comprehensive proposals spanning enforcement, sentencing and Court processes which reflect the Government's continuous efforts to ensure our criminal justice processes remain fair and effective in an increasingly complex security landscape. As such, I support this Bill, but would like to seek some clarifications.

Let me begin with the provisions relating to law enforcement powers.

Clause 11 of the Bill empowers officers of CNB, ICA and the Singapore Prison Service (Prisons) to pursue and re-arrest persons escaping from the lawful custody of other Home Team Departments (HTDs), including the Police. This is sensible, as it synergises inter-departmental capabilities to better deal with flight risks.

I have noted the past success and risk of joint operations involving not just HTDs but also other LEAs outside MHA, such as Singapore Customs under the Ministry of Finance (MOF). As such, can the Minister clarify if such powers will or can be extended to LEAs beyond the Home Team to further strengthen inter-Ministry operational efficiencies?

Clauses 4 and 6 clarify the powers of LEAs in obtaining customer information from financial institutions (FIs), in line with Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)' policy, specifically for banks and licensed companies, to enhance the protection of confidential customer information held by these FIs. Can the Minister clarify the safeguards for the protection of such information procured from such FIs during investigations, including the deletion of such information after investigations have concluded?

I now turn to the new framework for FMEs. The proposed Division 5 of clause 7, which formally empowers the Police and other specialists to obtain forensic medical evidence critical for investigations, with the closure of this legislative gap and the improved potential for solving crimes, can the Minister share the number and status of cases in the past five years, in which the current lack of legal powers for FME has impeded investigations?

In addition, for victims where FME is needed, consent is required except in certain circumstances laid out in the proposed section 40H(2) of clause 7. In this regard, can the Minister clarify, for cases where an FME is conducted on a victim above the age of 14, who is unable to give consent due to a temporary physical or mental condition, for example, intoxication, but who upon recovery refuses consent, does he/she have any recourse for the removal of FME information or perhaps, upon conclusion of investigation and Court proceedings?

Next, on the new sentences for public protection, the severity of the proposed SPP and SEPP conveys our desire to prevent dangerous offenders from being automatically released from prison after the end of their jail term.

For both frameworks, the judgments by the Court will be complemented with timely assessments of an offender's rehabilitation closer to the potential release date and powers vested upon the Minister to, on the advice of a Review Board, order the offender's release on licence or continued detention.

As it is critical for such powers to be exercised judiciously, based on robust risk assessments, so that decisions fairly balance the continued detention of an offender with the need for public safety, can the Minister clarify the safeguards that will be put in place?

One, what criteria would the Minister or Review Board consider in assessing an offender's suitability for release?

Two, what are the grounds for the offender's application for the judicial review against the decision of the Detention Review Board?

Aligned with this objective to enhance public protection and to provide greater assurance, I note that the amendments do not apply to those who are already serving existing sentences.

What can be done to better protect the public in cases where an offender who was sentenced before SEPP came into effect but still poses a threat to the public and will be released upon serving his current sentence? This is just like the example the Minister mentioned about the offender who was sentenced for raping his niece and, after less than two years upon release, sexually assaulted his stepdaughter.

On the improvements in Court processes, clauses 12 and 13 provide for the Courts and the Police to release accused persons on personal bond for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. While I appreciate that an aim of this measure is to expedite cases to relieve stress on our criminal justice system, the contrary may result if the risk of abscondment is not properly managed. With this in mind, can the Minister share the rate of abscondment for cases of personal bond in the past five years and whether key learnings were or can be derived from dealing of these cases to strengthen safeguards against flight risks?

Lastly, I recognise that clause 33 accords immunity to the Chief Justice and the Selection Committee regarding the appointment of members to the Panel of Psychiatrists, introduced in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill that was passed in 2018.

May I request the Minister to share the progress of its operationalisation since then, as well as measures to mitigate actual or perceived conflict of interest in appointments made by the Selection Committee?

Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications, I am confident that this Bill will serve its purpose to uphold and strengthen the ethos of justice and peace that all of us, as Singaporeans, have come to be proud of. I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.11 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, almost two years ago in April 2022, I had asked the Minister for Home Affairs in this very House about the safeguards in place to protect members of the public, particularly children and women, from recalcitrant sex offenders and whether the Ministry will consider lifelong counselling and monitoring of these offenders.

We have to bear in mind that such cases of sexual abuse or assault on young persons can have a long-term adverse impact on the victims and we must do all we can to protect them and prevent these crimes from even taking place again.

When it comes to serious violent offences, such as culpable homicide and attempted murder, the danger posed to society is even clearer and greater. As a country, we would have failed these victims who fall prey to offenders who were released at the end of their jail terms even though they showed signs of reoffending.

The Home Affairs Minister, in his response two years ago, had shared that MHA and MinLaw were, in fact, studying a new sentencing option to give more protection to the public. Under this proposal, known as SEPP in short, which we are finally able to debate on today, dangerous offenders or repeat offenders who commit very serious hurt and sexual offences will not be automatically released after serving their sentence, but would be released only after having been assessed as no longer posing a threat to the public.

SEPP is not an alternative to life sentencing. Under SEPP, I see that Judges are making their decisions aided by expert risk assessment reports by professionals from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) or others and there is a review built in at their end of their original sentence where assessments are conducted by expert psychiatrists and a detention review board. This review is also triggered after every two years to provide a chance for the offenders to be considered for release.

I think we can all agree that in such egregious cases, there needs to be a balance struck somewhere, to allow offenders to have a second chance while also keeping the vulnerable protected. I would also like to echo feedback that I have received from lawyers who regularly handled such cases, that we would need more clarity on how the assessment will be conducted and what are the criteria for an unconditional discharge. I also hope that to be fair to offenders, there can be additional and dedicated resources provided to support offenders convicted under SEPP in their rehabilitation journey while in prison. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think we can all agree that in such egregious cases, there needs to be a balance struck somewhere, to allow offenders to have a second chance while also keeping the vulnerable protected.

I would also like to echo feedback that I have received from lawyers who regularly handled such cases, that we would need more clarity on how the assessment will be conducted and what are the criteria for an unconditional discharge. I also hope that to be fair to offenders, there can be additional and dedicated resources provided to support offenders convicted under SEPP in their rehabilitation journey in prison.

(In English): I believe that the amendments are much needed and timely, and I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

5.15 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to first declare my occupation as a director of a law corporation and one of the areas of practice which the firm provides is criminal defence.

Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. While the Bill seeks to bring about a series of changes, my speech today will focus on clause 304B, which provides for SEPP.

At the outset, I acknowledge the Government’s calibrated approach for the SEPP, the applicability of which is scrupulously limited to serious violent and sexual offences specified in the Seventh Schedule.

In my view, one of the most severe legal punishments – indefinite detention in prison – is being rightly and proportionately reserved for the most deplorable species of offences. That said, the nuance that bears highlighting is this – it is not necessarily just the intrinsic nature and severity of the Scheduled offences themselves that warrant the infliction of the SEPP, but perhaps more crucially, it is the proclivity of the offenders to re-offend after they have been released.

We have read in news reports and judgments of cases, the atrocities committed by some offenders. We surely must have asked ourselves – could this have been prevented, or prevented from happening again? Each victim is one too many; each victim has physical and mental trauma that he or she may never recover from in spite of their best efforts and support from their loved ones. As Minister Shanmugam has said: "the Government’s key duty is to protect the public." It is certainly also a key duty of this House to do the same.

Notwithstanding, we must discharge this duty responsibly and proportionately. After all, there is no saint without a past, and no sinner without a future.

The objective of the SEPP is not to eliminate the future or decimate the prospect of rehabilitation of any offender. Instead, it seeks to ensure that offenders are not released back into society before they have been sufficiently rehabilitated, which could otherwise jeopardise the future of a potential victim. To this end, I seek the following clarifications from the Minister:

Firstly, during the period of continued incarceration, will SEPP inmates undergo specific or specialised rehabilitation programmes? If so, what are those? And if so, whether good performers of such rehabilitation programmes can be allowed an avenue to make representation to seek for Minister’s early consideration for review of his suitability for an early release?

Lastly, in respect of sexual offenders who have been released unconditionally or on licence from SEPP, will MHA consider, apart from curfew and/or electronic monitoring, also imposing a condition akin to an automatic Protection Order that prohibits such offenders from coming into any unnecessary contact with their former victims? And where the offender was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder, that he or she should also be prohibited from coming into any unnecessary contact with children?

Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding any of my aforementioned clarifications, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

5.19 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the proposed Criminal Procedure Bill is extensive and covers many facets. One of the substantive amendments include the introduction of the SEPP for which many of the Members here have spoken much about.

Over the past few years, there have been many reports of cases involving dangerous offenders. These include serial sex offenders who preyed on children, as well recalcitrant offenders who committed serious sexual or violent offences soon after being released from prison.

This is not just a statistic, it is a stark reality that poses an immediate threat to the safety and well-being of our society. We therefore cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this alarming issue.

Hence, I am in support of the introduction of SEPP through the Bill as it seeks to better protect the public from dangerous, repeated offenders. However, I should also highlight that it has the challenge of balancing the individual rights of those affected by the wide ranging enhancements placed to protect the public against such dangerous offenders.

As the introduction of the SEPP could see the offender jailed indefinitely, beyond the crime he was originally charged for, it is through these lens that I want to seek clarifications so that while we agree that we must better protect the public from such offenders, we also have the civic duty to be fair to such offenders.

Clause 45 includes the "Seventh Schedule" for offences of which sentences for SEPP may be imposed. The offences cited include offences under sections 304, 307, 308, 326, 354, 375, 376, just to name a few. This includes violent crimes such as culpable homicide, attempt to murder, voluntarily causing grevious hurt and serious sexual offences.

When will the SEPP take into effect? Is it applied at the point of sentencing or at the point of release?

Will the SEPP be applicable to those already in incarceration? In other words, if there is currently a violent or sexual predator already serving sentence, could the SEPP be applicable to him after it is deemed by MHA that the offender is still a threat to society? If yes, do we have the necessary court resources to assess those that are already in incarceration? If no, how do we prevent the current offenders who have a tendency to recommit crimes be detained for the sake of public safety?

Based on the current offenders serving their sentence, what will be the number of offenders that could be placed on SEPP for which indefinite detention could be a possibility?

While serving SEPP, does an offender still have opportunities to be rehabilitated and taken off SEPP before the end of his mandatory jail term?

Why does there seem to be an increase in number of such crimes in the first place? Are we committing any resources from any Ministry in order to better understand this at the causal level? Should we not be looking into preventing such heinous crimes from happening in the first place?

And is there adequate mental health support and rehabilitation services for such offenders who may have underlying mental issues?

For the sentencing for SEPP, I understand that it is up to the Courts to decide. The Minister has earlier shared the make-up of the panel in his opening speech. Who will decide who sits on the panel?

And during the individual's detention, will the offender be able to appeal against the SEPP sentenced on him? Or will he only be re-assessed at the end of his mandatory detention?

During the period where the offender is released on licence and placed on certain conditions, do we monitor such offenders in terms of their Internet use, keeping in mind online platforms are often gateways to groom and exploit potential victims?

For those already sentenced on SEPP and not released on licence, the Bill mentions regular reviews to determine whether the offender can be unconditionally released and the sentence brought to an end. How often will these reviews be? Who will be conducting these reviews and how often can such reviews be appealed?

In conclusion, the cases for sexual and violent offenders is a pressing issue that demands urgent attention. The Bill goes a long way in terms of providing legal measures that can help us work towards creating safer communities and protecting the most vulnerable amongst us. We need to also ensure that we use a combination of prevention and rehabilitation programmes to tackle this at the root of the problem. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.

Debate resumed.

5.27 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): I thank the Members who spoke on the Bill for their questions and suggestions. I will first respond to questions regarding the law enforcement related amendments.

Mr Derrick Goh asked whether the powers to pursue and re-arrest persons who escape from the lawful custody of Home Team Departments will be extended to non-Home Team law enforcement agencies (LEAs).

Currently, we do not have plans to extend the powers to non-Home Team LEAs. Our assessment is that the extension of these powers to Home Team LEAs would suffice to effectively deal with persons who escape from lawful custody of Home Team Departments. At the same time, non-Home Team agencies may seek the assistance of the Police for persons who escape from their custody.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Raj Thomas and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the proposed amendments to allow the Police to conduct a search without warrant.

This specific amendment is about searching a place, in order to investigate a specific arrestable offence, where the police believe that the item they are looking for, related to this investigation, is in the possession or control of the suspect.

As I have mentioned earlier in my speech, this power is not new. The Police can already perform a search without warrant for arrestable offences in certain circumstances, and the amendment makes the exercise of this power more practicable. I have also spoken about the prerequisites before exercising this power. For example, Police will have to apply for a court order for a search where the owner of the property is not a suspect and is uncontactable. To clarify, the powers under section 34 are for investigation into arrestable offences. For investigation into non-arrestable offences, Police will still need to obtain an order of the Public Prosecutor or a Magistrate before they can conduct searches without warrant.

Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the safeguards to protect sensitive financial information obtained by LEAs. The relevant LEA officers are obliged to safeguard official information obtained during investigations under the Official Secrets Act.

The specific LEAs must also adhere to guidelines in the Singapore Government Instructions Manual for Security of Classified Information and may also put in place operational safeguards to secure the data and prevent unauthorised access, for example, in respect of how the data will be stored and handled, and who can access the data.

I next move on to the questions on FME. The questions broadly fall within three categories: first, issues relating to consent; second, procedures of FME; and third, safeguards for vulnerable persons undergoing FME.

First, I address the questions about consent. Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about situations where an FME can be proceeded with where the victim cannot give consent and who makes the determination.

The assessment of the victim's ability to consent will be made by the Police officer. Police may also consult relevant experts, where appropriate. For example, when a potential victim of sexual assault is brought to the hospital unconscious, the Police will generally take into account the assessment of the medical professionals treating the person, such as whether and when the person is likely to regain consciousness, before deciding whether to wait for the victim to regain consciousness or to proceed with FME without consent.

Ms Usha Chandradas asked for examples of temporary conditions other than intoxication. The examples in the Bill are non-exhaustive. Another example other than intoxication is when the victim has fainted. In such circumstances, Police will have to assess the situation. If there is no risk to the evidence, they can wait.

Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about the thresholds for reasonable efforts under section 40H. In contacting a victim’s parent, guardian, deputy or donee. What constitutes reasonable efforts will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, which will include consideration of the time sensitivity of the FME.

Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Nadia Samdin had questions about the consent requirements for minors, including a situation when a minor victim has differing preference with his or her parents on the consent of FME.

For victims above the age of 14 years old, their consent is required to recognise their autonomy. The age threshold of 14 years old takes reference from the concept of Gillick competence used in medical law that a person aged 14 or above would have sufficient understanding and maturity to understand proposed medical procedure and consequences. For victims below the age of 16 years old, the consent of the authorised decision-maker is required. For victims between 14 and 16 years of age, consent from both the victim and his or her authorised decision-maker is required. Where either the victim or the parent does not consent, Police will not proceed with the FME.

Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the basis of the Police overriding the wishes of a donee or guardian for FME conducted on the victim. She may be referring to section 40H(3)(b)(iii)(C) of the Bill. To clarify, aside from the carve-outs for suspected perpetrators and persons who wish to conceal the offence, which the Member has already mentioned, the Police can proceed with the FME only if the authorised decision-maker abstains from giving consent. This could happen, for example, if they are in an estranged relationship and do not want to be involved in the decision.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the differentiated approach towards victims and accused persons, specifically the penalties for refusal and consent requirements for minor accused persons.

As Minister Shanmugam explained in his opening speech, and as I have explained in my Malay speech earlier, we take a different approach towards victims and accused persons. This is because accused persons who have committed the offence may refuse to consent to the FME in a bid to escape liability. For accused persons who are minors, we take the same approach in terms of consent requirements. But at the same time, we are putting in place safeguards when FME procedures involve intimate parts or invasive procedures. On the other hand, we would want to ensure that victims are treated differently. To clarify, there will be no offence when victims refuse an FME. For accused persons, they will not be liable for the offence if they had a reasonable excuse to refuse the FME.

I move on to the second category of questions about the procedures of FMEs.

Ms Usha Chandradas and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked about the advice or information provided before the FME is carried out. Mr Desmond Choo asked what is considered reasonable excuse to refuse an FME.

There will be measures put in place so that those who are asked to undergo the FME procedure know what to expect. For example, beyond being told they will be examined, they will also be informed about the relevant procedure.

For victims and their decision-makers, they can consider this information before deciding whether to consent. For accused persons, they will be reminded to comply unless they have a reasonable excuse, such as a health condition that would result in the FME endangering them. They will also be cautioned that if they do not comply without a reasonable excuse, reasonable force may be used, except where the FME relates to intimate parts or involves taking an invasive sample.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if victims can seek a forensic medical examination without reporting the matter to the Police.

FMEs are forensic procedures for the purpose of gathering evidence for criminal investigations. The position we have taken in Singapore is that an FME will only be carried out on the direction of the Police. This is important for serious offences, so that Police can make timely intervention and commence investigations into the matter. Given that FME is a critical part of the criminal investigation, it should be conducted with oversight of the Police to be done robustly and with accountability.

Victims who wish to seek medical treatment or counselling are always welcome to do so, with the institution or practitioner of their choice, but such treatment and counselling are not considered FME.

On Mr Zhulkarnain’s question on allowing FMEs to be conducted by GPs, it is in the same context as mentioned earlier that some FMEs are only conducted at select public hospitals. These matters may end up in Court.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked why the age thresholds in the FME context are different from the general position for medical treatments. This is because medical treatments can have greater risks and have more significant bodily impact on the patient, compared to FME procedures.

Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that medical advice be given prior to an FME. FMEs are forensic procedures. They are not medical treatments. Persons subject to an FME would be informed of the procedure and what to expect.

Mr Derrick Goh asked if the victim can request to remove FME information that was collected without their consent. To reiterate, FME information will only be collected without a victim’s consent in exceptional circumstances. If forensic evidence has already been collected under such exceptional circumstances, the evidence will be retained to allow the Police to solve the crime and bring the perpetrator to justice. The information of the victim will be kept confidential and used for investigating the case at hand.

Should the victim request not to pursue the case, Police will notify AGC of the victim’s request. Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor will decide whether to proceed with the case, in exercise of his independent prosecutorial discretion.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked about samples that are considered invasive. Whether a sample is invasive or not depends on the procedure used to obtain the sample. For example, obtaining a saliva sample via a buccal swab or extracting a hair sample by cutting the subject’s hair are not invasive procedures.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether Police would prioritise less invasive and intimate procedures over more intrusive ones. It is often the case that particular types of forensic evidence can only be derived through specific FME procedures. For example, a swab has to be taken from the penis of the accused person, and not from other body parts, when investigating into an alleged rape offence, to show proof of contact between the victim’s body and the accused person’s penis. For such instances, there are no substitutes for the intimate FME which has to be done.

Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas had questions about the use of “reasonable force” on accused persons. Police will first look at the facts and circumstances of the case, before deciding whether an accused person should undergo an FME.

There is time sensitivity in obtaining forensic evidence to minimise the risk of contamination. This is especially so for DNA evidence which degrades rapidly when exposed to the external environment. It would, therefore, not be feasible to require a warrant from the Courts before proceeding with the FME, including using reasonable force to carry out the FME when required.

Police have established protocols on the use of force. What constitutes reasonable force will depend on the circumstances of the case. Examples include pulling on a cheek to swab the inside of the suspect’s mouth and holding the subject’s head still to obtain a hair sample.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the training of auxiliary police officers (APOs) in the conduct of FMEs. Reasonable force cannot be used on a victim and on FMEs involving intimate parts or invasive procedures. APOs undergo the appropriate training, which includes the use of reasonable force.

Ms Usha Chandradas asked who will conduct the FME of the person’s intimate parts, if that person identifies differently from their registered sex. The Police will generally take reference from the sex that is registered on the individual’s identity card or identification document.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the disclosure of intimate images, and Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Desmond Choo raised a similar question about precautions in relation to disclosure of material obtained through FME procedures.

Under the proposed amendments, the Prosecution will not be required to serve on the Defence copies of documentary exhibits consisting any image of an individual’s genital or anal region or the breasts of a woman. Instead, the Prosecution must arrange for the Defence to view the documentary exhibit at a Police station or other prescribed place, if the Prosecution is legally required to disclose the exhibit and the Defence requests to view the exhibit.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Prosecution can serve a redacted exhibit where the intimate image is removed. Whether it is appropriate or practicable to serve a redacted form of the documentary exhibit will depend on the exhibit in question.

I will next address the third category of questions which are about safeguards for vulnerable persons.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Denise Phua and Ms Nadia Samdin asked how victims and vulnerable persons will be supported.

First, in relation to victims. Victim care is a key aspect of the Police’s procedures for handling sexual assault cases. As Minister Shanmugam mentioned, there will be safeguards in place, including reasonable privacy measures when the FME involves the subject’s intimate parts. These include measures to inform the victim about the relevant FME procedure and they can communicate any concerns. For minor or vulnerable victims undergoing FME, the Police may allow the victim to have a trusted person to be present to support the victim through the process, where this will facilitate the FME and not jeopardise investigations.

Beyond the amendments, the Police have also put in place measures to support victims. For example:

(a) the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command, which is staffed by officers who are specifically trained to deal with sexual crime and family violence cases.

(b) the Victim Care Cadre programme, which is offered to victims of family violence below 18 years of age and sexual crime. A Victim Care Officer will be assigned to provide emotional and practical support to victims throughout the criminal justice process; and

(c) the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSAFE) Centre was redesigned and expanded with an enhanced improved design to provide victims with more privacy and convenience during the investigation process.

MSF also encourages these victims to seek help from Protection Specialist Centres (PSCs), which can assist them in applying for Personal Protection Orders and facilitate alternative safe accommodation. Victims of sexual violence will be supported by forensic psychologists in the PSCs who will provide timely psychological assessments and interventions, such as the treatment of trauma. Victims or those who know of someone experiencing sexual violence can also contact the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment helpline at 1800-777-0000, which can provide psychosocial support and referrals to appropriate agencies.

We would like to thank Assoc Prof Razwana Begum for her suggestions on the Victim Care Cadre Programme. We will consider them carefully.

For accused persons, where minor or vulnerable accused persons undergo intimate or invasive FME procedures, the Police will notify the accused person and, if possible, a trusted person, that the accused person has been required to undergo FME; inform them about the relevant FME procedure; and allow the accused person to speak with the trusted person on the phone through the speaker.

This will be the general position, unless Police assess that investigations may be affected. The Police will also consider how to treat vulnerable accused persons, including those with disabilities or special needs sensitively, which was a point raised by Ms Denise Phua.

We would also like to thank Ms Denise Phua for her other questions on specialised interview techniques for vulnerable persons, the Appropriate Adult Scheme and on supporting vulnerable persons during the criminal process, beyond the context of FMEs. This is an important area, and the Government has introduced changes in this regard in recent years. However, as these issues are not the focus of this Bill, we will not deal with them in detail today. We note Ms Phua’s points and will look into these as part of our regular reviews.

Lastly, to Mr Derrick Goh’s questions about the number of cases where the lack of legal powers for FMEs has impeded investigations, the Police do not track this.

Mr Speaker, I will now address the questions on our Court processes.

Mr Derrick Goh had asked about abscondment and safeguarding against flight risks, for the proposal to allow the Courts to release accused persons on personal bond for non-bailable offences punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment or less. The number of cases where persons on personal bond absconded is not specifically tracked.

The proposed amendment will allow more accused persons to be released before trial, but this will only be in appropriate cases, after an assessment of various factors, including flight risk. There will be additional safeguards, given that there is no bailor to ensure the accused person's attendance. For example, the Court can only release a person on personal bond for these non-bailable offences if the Prosecution consents. Even if the Prosecution consents, the Court can still refuse to release the person on personal bond, if it assesses that it is not appropriate to do so.

Where the Court releases an accused on personal bond, the Court must impose any condition specified by the Prosecution for the accused to be released on personal bond; and the Prosecution can withdraw consent previously given, at any stage of the proceedings. This caters for any changes of circumstances, including the discovery of new information relating to the accused's flight risk.

Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the Panel of Psychiatrists. The work to operationalise the Panel is ongoing. We have been working to prepare the relevant subsidiary legislation and put in place the necessary processes relating to admissions to the Panel.

As for Mr Derrick Goh's question on mitigating conflicts of interest in appointments by the Selection Committee, measures will be put in place to manage any potential or actual conflicts of interest. This includes the possibility of Selection Committee members or the Chief Justice recusing themselves from the matter, if necessary.

I will now address the Members' questions on the proposed disclosure provisions.

Mr Louis Ng asked who is considered a "material witness", for the purpose of the Prosecution's obligation under the new section 221B(1), clause 23 of the Bill. The definition is set out in the new section 221A(2).

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the proposed sections 221A to 221D prevent the Prosecution from disclosing Prosecution witnesses' statements, and asked about the circumstances in which the Prosecution would have to disclose such statements.

These proposed provisions are consistent with the case law on the disclosure of Prosecution witnesses' statements. Statements of Prosecution witnesses may have to be disclosed to the Defence under section 221B if these statements fulfil the KDO criteria, which we are proposing to codify. This is set out in section 221A(1).

Whether a Prosecution witness's statement has to be disclosed under the codified KDO in section 221B in a particular case, will depend on the facts.

I will now address Members' questions on SEPP. The questions cover a number of areas, which I will deal with in turn.

First, Members, including Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Mr Sharael Taha, asked for certain statistics, including on the number of repeat sex offenders and the number of offenders who are expected to receive SEPP. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked about the intended benefits of the regime.

I start by clarifying that SEPP is not based on any specific crime trend. As Minister Shanmugam shared, SEPP is the outcome of our regular review of our laws. It is intended to provide the Courts with an additional tool to address dangerous offenders who commit serious crimes and pose an assessed risk of committing similar crimes again in the future after their release.

Based on the current statistics, it may be less than 30 cases per year where the SEPP may be appropriate.

Ms Sylvia Lim provided her cautious support for the regime, for which I thank her. She raised some questions including whether it may be better for the Court to impose a long imprisonment sentence, as may already be done, rather than a SEPP.

Our view is that simply increasing the length of the incarceration is not the right solution. Some dangerous offenders may continue to pose a danger to society, even after serving a very long prison sentence. I will refer to the list of case examples. Each victim is a serious tragic situation.

Under the present law, we must release such offenders unconditionally after they have served their sentence, even if they still pose a danger to the public.

On the other hand, there is also another situation which we should seek to avoid. These offenders could be subject to very long sentences upfront and may be detained for longer than necessary because the Court has to rely on an assessment done at the time of sentencing. Under SEPP, the Court does not always need to impose a longer sentence at the outset for public protection. It can better focus on the circumstances of the offence when setting the minimum period of custody, knowing that there will be a further risk assessment prior to release.

This may very well result in the offender being detained for a shorter period, especially if he is successfully rehabilitated and can be released after the minimum period of custody. On the other hand, if he still poses a danger, he will continue to be detained – in such cases, the offender may be detained for longer than presently the case.

This is also a more calibrated approach, as Minister Shanmugam shared.

Next, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the suitability criteria and the factors which the Courts will consider when deciding whether to impose SEPP.

Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about possible sentencing guidelines, and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had a question on the role of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in determining the ambit and types of offences that fall within the SEPP.

The criteria are set out in the legislation in broad terms to give the Courts sufficient discretion to decide when SEPP should be appropriate, based on the specific facts of each case. I should also clarify that the types of offences that qualify for SEPP are set out in the legislation and is not something that the Sentencing Advisory Panel will decide on.

Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted that even first-time offenders can be sentenced to SEPP, and raised the concern that SEPP may not be appropriate for one-off cases. We have sought to deal with this in the Bill. The Court must call for an independent risk assessment report for first-time offenders before deciding whether SEPP is appropriate. The legislation also requires the Court to be satisfied that the first-time offender "poses a substantial threat of causing serious physical or sexual harm to any other person or persons". This standard makes clear our policy intent that, for first-time offenders, SEPP should only be imposed in serious cases.

Members may also refer to the case examples we provided. The first seven cases listed in the handout all relate to offenders with no previous convictions. Members would agree that these are egregious cases. If similar cases arise, our view is that the Court should have the option of imposing SEPP, even if the offender has no prior convictions.

To respond to Mr Louis Ng's question about the differences between SEPP and SPP – SEPP has much more stringent criteria than SPP. This is set out in the legislation. For example, to qualify for SEPP, the offender must be convicted of one of the serious violent or sexual offences in the new Seventh Schedule.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked why certain offences, such as sexual crimes committed through the Internet, do not qualify for SPP and SEPP. To clarify, the offences raised by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi do qualify for SPP. SEPP will apply for severe cases, as set out in the Bill.

Mr Sharael Taha had questions about the sentencing for SEPP, including whether it applies to current offenders and whether it is imposed at the point of sentencing or release. SEPP does not apply to current offenders – the regime will only apply to offences committed after the amendments are passed and brought into force. As it is a sentence, it is imposed by the Court at the point of sentencing after the offender is convicted.

Mr Sharael Taha also had questions on who would provide the risk assessment report to the Court and whether the offender can appeal against his sentence. Mr Desmond Choo asked if such reports should be mandatory. At the sentencing stage, the risk assessment report will be provided by an independent appointed psychiatrist, usually from IMH. For first-time offenders, the Court is obliged to call for the report. For repeat offenders, it is not mandatory, but the Court has the discretion to call for the report, where appropriate. In addition, the Defence can also produce its own expert reports. Any disputes over these expert assessments will be settled in line with existing principles of law. An appeal may also be filed if either the Prosecution or the Defence is dissatisfied with the Court's decision on the sentence.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether there is any limit to the number of times the offender can be remanded in custody for the pre-sentencing risk assessment. There is no limit set out in the statute. To be clear, it is the Court which decides on the period of remand. The process will be similar to other pre-sentencing assessments, for example, for Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, which are supervised by the Courts.

I will next deal with the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the rehabilitative resources available to offenders. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum suggested that they could be segregated from other prisoners with extra support.

Prisoners sentenced to SEPP may not necessarily be segregated – they will be housed in line with prevailing Prison policies. This will allow them to benefit from the very comprehensive suite of rehabilitative programmes that are available to all inmates. These include work, religious and educational activities. Their suitability for such programmes will depend on their conduct, any medical conditions, willingness, as well as any programme-specific requirements. The offenders will also have access to psychology-based interventions targeting their specific needs, including specific violent and sexual interventions.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum also asked whether the treatment of offenders placed on SEPP and SPP can be subject to oversight by independent visitors. As SEPP and SPP offenders will be detained in prisons, all the safeguards and systems in place for our prisons will apply to them. This includes the Board of Visiting Justices, an independent body which conducts random inspections of prisons facilities and speaks to prisoners to ensure the welfare of prisoners.

I next move on to the questions from Members, including Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, about the review process at the end of the Court-imposed minimum term.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about why it is the Minister, and not the Court, that decides on the offender's release, and if this interferes with the Court's sentencing powers. As Minister Shanmugam made clear, it is the Court which will decide whether SEPP is appropriate. The Court can decide not to impose SEPP if it of the view that an ordinary imprisonment term is more appropriate.

When the Court decides that SEPP is appropriate, the possibility that the offender may be detained past the minimum period is a part of the sentence imposed by the Judge. The Court decides whether SEPP is appropriate in line with the usual sentencing power to assess how the considerations of deterrence, retribution, public protection and so on are to be given effect.

After the minimum period, the decision is a different one. The continued detention of the offender past that point, once the term has expired, is no longer to punish the offender, but to protect the public. It involves a complex assessment of multiple factors including the risk that the offender might reoffend, his conduct in prison and his rehabilitative progress and prospects.

The logical and principled approach is for this to be an executive decision. There can be judicial review in specific situations.

The Minister's role in deciding whether to release the offender is not unique in our criminal justice system, as Minister Shanmugam shared earlier. Under the current sentences of Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, it is the Minister who decides whether someone should be released on licence before the end of the sentence. Similarly, for life imprisonment prisoners, the Minister decides if they should be released on remission before the end of the sentence. Similar considerations apply here. The Minister will also be advised by a Detention Review Board.

There are also other jurisdictions with similar regimes. For example, Canada and New Zealand have similar sentences for dangerous offenders, where the offender is detained for a certain minimum period after which the offender can be detained further until a Parole Board decides that the offender is suitable for release.

Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the constitution of the Detention Review Board. As mentioned during Minister Shanmugam's opening speech, the Review Board will comprise of persons with high public standing, with experience in forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. This may include retired judges, senior lawyers or senior psychiatrists and psychologists.

Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Louis Ng asked about the criteria and frameworks that will guide the Minister and the Detention Review Board when assessing an offender's suitability for release. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked whether the views of the victims or families or public interest would be considered during the review. Each decision is case-specific, and the key factors will include the offender's conduct in prison, his rehabilitative progress and prospects, his likelihood of reoffending and the likely seriousness of the offences if he reoffends. These criteria will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the standard of proof that the Minister will apply when considering whether the offender ought to be released and whether he must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The review is a complex assessment of what is in the interest of public safety and protection based a number of factors, including the expert risk assessment and the offender's rehabilitative progress and prospects. Ultimately, it is a judgment that has to be made, based on expert assessments.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether an offender could make representations when he is reviewed for release. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether there could be independent advocates to represent the offender. As covered in the Minister's opening address, offenders can make written representations, whether by themselves, their family members or through their legal counsel, when they are reviewed for release.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Ng also asked about the methods for assessing an offender’s suitability for release. Ms Sylvia Lim also raised the concern that such assessments may give rise to false positives. Independent risk assessments by experts will play a role in this regime. Such assessments will be done by experts. When conducting the assessments, the assessor can also interview the subjects and possibly their next of kin, and this can be supplemented with relevant information from the agencies. All of this is not fail-proof. But it is much better than the current situation where some come out without any risk assessment and destroy more lives, others spend an unnecessarily longer time in jail.

To address Ms Sylvia Lim’s concern, the risk assessments are to identify the risk of violence, which includes physical violence and sexual violence. They are not used to predict the future. Instead, the tools guide the Detention Review Board and the Minister on the appropriate decision to be made, based on a variety of factors, including the risk assessment as well as the appropriate balance between the risk that the offender poses and the interests of public protection.

Mr Desmond Choo asked about the frequency of these reviews. The legislation stipulates that there must be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked if the Minister will produce a report to justify the continued detention of the offender. The offender will be duly notified of the Minister’s decision. Members will appreciate that there are a number of considerations at play, including the possible need to keep certain information confidential as well as the need to prevent offenders from gaming the system. We will also consider and study what details, if any, can be made public.

Mr Derrick Goh asked if an offender could appeal against the extension of his detention. I can assure the Member that Prisons and the Ministry will not want to keep anyone in prison longer than necessary. The Court would have already imposed a SEPP sentence on the offender. The offender would have had a right of appeal against his sentence and by the time he is serving the SEPP, he would either have exercised his right or appeal, or have given it up. There will be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court. There will be no further right of appeal from the Minister’s decision.

I will next deal with questions on what happens after an SEPP offender is released on license.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether such offenders can be placed in half-way houses. The answer is yes – as with other ex-inmates, SEPP offenders released on license can be placed in half-way houses to support their reintegration. I thank her for the suggestion that we consider the restorative model of justice during the reintegration process.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Sharael Taha asked for greater clarity on the criteria for when an offender can be released without conditions. An SEPP offender who is detained will be released on licence. When an offender is released on licence, his case will be reviewed at least every two years by the Minister. The offender may then be unconditionally released depending on his progress outside of Prison, and the primary consideration will be whether his risk to others has been sufficiently addressed.

Ms Hany Soh and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the conditions which may be imposed when an offender is released on licence. Ms Hany Soh asked if sexual offenders who are released from SEPP would be subjected to measures to prohibit them from coming into unnecessary contact with their former victims and children. In preparation for an offender’s release, Prisons would consider what conditions can be imposed on the offender that could help protect the victim. Obviously, this cannot be a complete guarantee.

Mr Sharael Taha raised the concern that the Internet use of such offenders will need to be monitored, as online platforms are often used to groom and exploit potential victims. There is a limit to what can be done. Prisons will consider imposing suitable conditions, but then again, it is not always going to be possible to guard against every possible risk, and a person may breach his conditions.

Members also asked about other possible measures to tackle serious violent and sexual crimes.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Government had considered alternatives to SEPP and SPP. One option is to extend the range of situations in which life imprisonment can be imposed. But life imprisonment is a blunt tool that is not always appropriate. SEPP is a more measured solution specifically calibrated to the risk that the offender poses to the public. It balances public protection and fairness to the offender, so that he does not need to be detained for longer than necessary.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi suggested expanding the use of our current community-based programmes and interventions. These are options that remain available. However, they may not be appropriate or effective for the very serious cases that SEPP is intended to address, where the offender poses a danger to the community and needs to be detained further.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether the Government had considered chemical treatments or surgical options for sexual offenders before they are released. At present, we do not intend to introduce such measures – they give rise to various issues and may not add much to our existing sentences. The key point is that, under SEPP, there will be assessments to ensure that, as far as possible, the risks of releasing such offenders will be reduced.

Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Sharael Taha also asked about measures to protect the public from serious offenders who are not sentenced to SPP or SEPP, including current offenders. Offenders serving imprisonment terms are first released on a remission order. For sufficiently serious offences, the offender will be subject to the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) during his remission period. While on MAS, he will be subject to conditions such as curfew, electronic monitoring, and supported with counselling, employment assistance and case management. Safety plans can also be formulated to protect potential victims.

The MAS regime is broadly similar to the release on license regime for SPP and SEPP – the key difference is that the conditions under MAS cannot be extended beyond the remission period, which is why we need SEPP.

Mr Sharael Taha raised the importance of upstream interventions, including preventative programmes and mental health support, a point that was also raised by Ms Usha Chandradas. Ms Usha Chandradas raised the point that stricter punishment on its own may not be sufficient to address violence against women. We agree and we are conscious that SEPP is not a silver bullet.

We have to look at many approaches to tackle sexual violence as part of our ongoing reviews. I also earlier shared some of the measures we have put in place to support victims through the criminal process.

In addition, the community – such as the parents and caregivers – also play an important role in protecting vulnerable individuals such as children. We urge them and victims to step forward, seek help and report such crimes to the Police so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.

Mr Louis Ng raised some questions on SPP, including on the relevant factors that the courts will consider before imposing SPP. To reiterate, SPP is generally based on the current CT and PD regimes so the principles and factors will be similar. These include the nature of the offences and the offender’s criminal history, and risk of recidivism.

Mr Speaker, with that I conclude my round-up speech, and thank Members once again for their support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Law, Mr Shanmugam.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. My colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Rahayu Mahzam, has answered the points raised by Members. With that, Sir, I beg to move.

6.08 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications from Members for Minister, Minister of State or Senior Parliamentary Secretary? Looks like it was a very comprehensive response from the three office holders.

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 K Shanmugam].

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