Police Force (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.18 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world. In 2020, Singapore was ranked top in the Gallup Global Law and Order Report for the seventh year running. This is, in large part, due to the Singapore Police Force, or SPF in short.

The Bill seeks to amend the Police Force Act, or PFA, so that SPF can carry out its mission to prevent, deter and detect crime and ensure the safety and security of Singaporeans even more effectively. The amendments aim to achieve the following: first, to enhance SPF's operational capabilities and readiness; second, to improve SPF's disciplinary, administrative and human resource processes; and third, to strengthen controls over the Auxiliary Police Forces.

Let me start with the first objective of enhancing SPF's operational capabilities and readiness.

The Bill enhances the regime against evading Police roadblocks. Drivers who evade roadblocks endanger the lives of Police officers and other road users. In an ensuing car chase, for example, evading drivers often exhibit dangerous driving behaviours, such as speeding, running red lights and swerving in and out of lanes suddenly without warning.

In 2017, a driver was instructed to stop at a roadblock. Not only did he not stop his vehicle, he dashed through the roadblock, which triggered a chase. He was sentenced to only three weeks' imprisonment for the offence of roadblock evasion. We were lucky that the driver did not cause harm in that instance to other road users and to our officers. In other instances, roadblock evasion has led to more serious damage to property and even injuries.

To increase deterrence, clause 6 of the Bill increases the maximum jail term and fine for evading a Police roadblock.

Clause 6 will also expand the definition of roadblock evasion to cover more modalities of evasion. Currently, the offence of roadblock evasion only applies to drivers who physically dash through a roadblock with their vehicle. However, SPF has encountered cases where drivers evade roadblocks by other ways, such as reversing, making a U-turn or alighting from their vehicle and escaping on foot.

In 2016, a motorcyclist stopped before a roadblock, abandoned his vehicle and fled on foot. While arresting the motorcyclist, a Police officer was injured. The motorcyclist was, eventually, convicted of voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant, unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a controlled drug. However, no further action could be taken against him for evading the roadblock, as he did not physically dash through it.

Clause 6 will make it an offence for a driver to fail to follow a Police officer's order, be it given by a spoken word, a hand signal, a notice or a sign, warning of the presence of a roadblock, to proceed towards a roadblock, stop, remain in the vehicle and keep the vehicle stationary until he or she is permitted to proceed.

Next, on the set-up of barriers to control human traffic. SPF sets up various types of barriers to control human traffic, such as to prevent members of the public from entering a crime scene or high-security area. However, even though the PFA provides that SPF has the duty to take lawful measures to preserve public peace and prevent and detect crimes and offences, the PFA does not explicitly empower Police officers to set up these barriers. Clause 6 makes explicit Police officers' powers to erect barriers to control human traffic. It also creates an offence for persons who fail to follow a Police officer's order to not cross such barriers.

Next, forced entry for cases of medical emergency. Police officers' powers to make forced entry are currently scoped to very specific circumstances, such as to perform rescue operations in cases of attempted suicide or to arrest suspects. However, Police officers would sometimes also respond to cases of medical emergency.

In June 2021, SPF received a call from a resident who heard a weak voice coming from a nearby unit asking for help. A senior resident resided in that unit alone. When our officers arrived outside the unit, they could not hear any sounds, were unable to contact the senior or even his next-of-kin and were told by his neighbour that the senior had just returned home from the hospital that very morning. As the senior could have been in dire need of help, the Police officers decided to make a forced entry immediately. They discovered that the senior had fallen and was unable to move. Thanks to our officers' actions, the senior was able to receive help quickly and was conveyed to the hospital.

Currently, in such cases of medical emergency, Police officers rely on the common law defence of necessity to make forced entry. To provide Police officers with greater assurance that they can make forced entry to conduct life-saving operations, clause 7 makes explicit that Police officers have the power to make forced entry of any place if they reasonably suspect that a person requires assistance because of injury or poor health.

Next, on providing Special Police Officers, or SPOs, with the same powers conferred on regular Police officers. SPOs comprise four categories of officers – full-time Police National Servicemen, or NSmen; Operationally-ready Police NSmen; Volunteer Ex-NSmen; and Volunteer Special Constabulary Officers.

In the PFA, our SPOs are vested with the same duties as regular Police officers. Like regulars, they have the duty to prevent and detect crimes, preserve public peace and protect persons from injury or death. However, SPOs, currently, only have powers of investigation under Part IV of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). This means that while they have the power to arrest a suspect or execute a search warrant, they do not have powers beyond investigations. These include the powers to set up roadblocks and search a person before they enter a high-security area.

To close this gap, clause 10 provides SPOs with the same powers conferred on regulars. This will allow SPF to deploy SPOs to a wider range of operations.

To ensure that these powers are exercised appropriately, SPF has in place robust safeguards. SPF will ensure that only SPOs who pass the requisite training can exercise policing powers and be deployed on the frontline. SPOs who are deemed unsuitable to exercise policing powers will be deployed to perform backend and administrative duties. This is already being done today.

For those who misuse their powers, SPF will take strict disciplinary action. In serious cases, we will also initiate criminal proceedings.

Next, providing Commercial Affairs Officers, or CAOs, with necessary powers. CAOs are public officers employed by SPF to investigate commercial and financial crimes. Currently, the PFA only provides CAOs with the powers of investigation under Part IV of the CPC. However, there are other powers which are necessary for their work.

For example, CAOs, currently, have the power to arrest suspects for an arrestable offence. However, if the suspect is unable to furnish bail and is subject to lock-up, CAOs will have to seek the assistance of Police officers to search the suspect to remove illicit items or items that may be used to facilitate escape or cause harm, prior to the lock-up. This is not an efficient process.

Hence, clause 9 provides CAOs with more powers, such as the power to arrest persons who possess anything reasonably suspected to be fraudulently obtained, and the power to issue bails and bonds.

There will be safeguards to prevent CAOs from misusing their new powers.

Clause 9 makes it explicit that CAOs are subject to certain restrictions when carrying out procedures relating to arrest and search, such as the mode for searching women. These are the same restrictions which apply to Police officers.

CAOs must also attend training and pass the requisite tests before they can exercise these powers.

Next, empowering the Commissioner of Police to delegate his powers to civilian officers. Currently, the Commissioner can delegate his powers to Police officers in leadership positions. However, he cannot do the same for civilian officers in leadership positions, such as the Director of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD).

This hampers operational efficiency. For example, if the CAD Director wishes to issue Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on how to handle cases of specific commercial crimes to Investigation Officers, he will have to ask a Police officer to do so on his behalf.

Clause 5 allows the Commissioner to delegate his and his Deputy Commissioners' powers to civilian officers in leadership positions.

Some powers conferred on the Commissioner will continue to be non-delegable. Examples include those under the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act.

Next, protecting officers from liability for acts done in good faith and with reasonable care. At times, Police officers have to make split-second decisions and take decisive action in order to save lives, even if their actions may result in injury or damage to property. Such time-critical and dangerous situations are often a matter of life and death and present themselves in high-stress environments.

For example, if a patrolling Police officer finds a person in a crowded public place waving around a chopper in his hand and shouting at passers-by and, if the person becomes increasingly agitated, the Police officer might tase the person to ensure public safety. Here, the defence of good faith and reasonable care applies even if the person suffers injuries as a result, as the Police officer believed honestly and based on objectively reasonable grounds that his actions were necessary to prevent harm and the Police officer had adhered to the standard operating protocol for using a taser to restrain a dangerous and armed person.

Clause 27 protects Police officers, SPOs, CAOs, Intelligence Officers and Forensic Specialists from liability for acts and omissions done in good faith and with reasonable care.

When carrying out their lawful duties, our officers can already rely on the common law defence of necessity. But we want to give greater assurance to our officers and make it explicit that they have protection for acts done in good faith and with reasonable care under the law, so that they can carry out their duties with greater confidence.

This is similar to the protection that is already accorded to other Home Team officers, such as SCDF officers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to emphasise that the new provision will not mean that our officers can act with disregard. It only applies when our officers have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Officers who act irresponsibly will be subjected to disciplinary proceedings or even criminal proceedings.

Next, the Bill provides SPF with the legal power to retain the employment of regular Police Officers during a major crisis. Major crises may include a major terrorist incident or a large-scale, sustained public order incident. SPF would need to have sufficient manpower to manage such crises.

Today, SPF can already mobilise SPOs under certain circumstances and require them to serve until they are demobilised. Full-time NSmen and Operationally-ready NSmen can already be retained for mobilised service upon a proclamation by the President under section 16 of the Enlistment Act. For volunteers, the Commissioner of Police can already mobilise them for active service under any circumstances under section 73 of the PFA, so long as the Minister’s permission is sought.

However, SPF does not have the legal power to stop regular Police Officers from resigning in the midst of a major crisis. To make sure that SPF has sufficient manpower resources during a major crisis, clause 3 provides that the Commissioner may refuse a notice of resignation given during a crisis period.

The Commissioner must be of the opinion that the officer’s service is necessary for the securing of the public safety, defence and security of Singapore.

The definition of a “crisis” only applies when the President has issued a Proclamation of Emergency under the Constitution, or the Minister for Home Affairs has given an activation order under the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act.

This is broadly similar to how the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) can already retain regular servicemen for mobilised service upon a proclamation by the President pursuant to section 16 of the Enlistment Act.

I will now speak about the second objective to improve SPF's disciplinary, administrative and human resources processes.

First, clauses 8 and 15 increase the maximum fines for Volunteer Special Constabulary Officers and regular Police Officers below the rank of Inspector. This ensures our officers continue to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct.

Next, today, SPF issues recall orders under the Enlistment Act to compel NSmen to report for disciplinary proceedings and NSmen can claim for loss in civilian remuneration.

Clause 16 allows SPF to issue orders under the PFA to compel NSmen who have committed disciplinary offences to report for disciplinary proceedings without having to make up for any loss in civilian remuneration. This is because the disciplinary proceedings arose out of their own wrongful actions in the first place.

Similar provisions for SCDF and SAF NSmen already exist in the Civil Defence Act and the Singapore Armed Forces Act respectively.

Next, currently, the Commissioner’s approval has to be sought for the discharge of NSFs for reasons other than completing full-time service, even when the reasons are straightforward, such as the NSF having a serious medical condition or being transferred to the SAF or SCDF.

To streamline this process, clause 13 specifies the conditions under which NSFs may be discharged from SPF automatically, without the need for the Commissioner’s approval. This aligns with the approach for Operationally-ready NSmen, who can already be automatically discharged under the same conditions.

Next, currently, the PFA allows the Minister to make regulations for Police associations, such as the Police Central Welfare Fund, which advance the welfare of regular Police officers.

Clause 28 allows the Minister to also include SPOs and civilian officers employed by SPF in Police associations. This is in recognition of the contributions that they make to support SPF in ensuring the safety and security of Singapore.

Next, disbandment of the Vigilante Corps (VC). Currently, full-time NSmen and Operationally-ready NSmen in SPF serve in one of two Forces: they may serve in the Special Constabulary, where they perform the same duties as regular Police officers and have powers of investigation under Part IV of the CPC. Otherwise, they may also serve in the Vigilante Corps.

Since the introduction of the VC in 1964, VC officers have made important contributions in supporting SPF to maintain law and order in Singapore. They mainly perform support roles and do not have any policing powers.

Moving forward, MHA will be disbanding the VC and transferring all existing VC officers to the Special Constabulary. This gives our NSmen the opportunity to be deployed in a greater variety of roles in SPF.

The Bill also makes minor amendments to streamline SPF’s administrative and human resources, which I will not go into further here.

The Bill also strengthens controls over Auxiliary Police Forces (APFs), which provide armed security services and supplement the Home Team’s efforts in ensuring the safety and security of Singapore.

The armed security industry was liberalised in 2004 to allow more APFs to operate islandwide. This was in consideration of the increasingly complex security environment, which required a larger pool of armed officers to step up security measures at various critical infrastructure and key installations. With the APFs providing support for such functions, SPF is also better able to focus on its core mission to prevent, deter and detect crime.

We had stated then that it was necessary to ensure that only trusted agents may operate and manage APFs in Singapore. These considerations remain valid today, as Auxiliary Police Officers bear arms and are vested with certain powers to perform their functions effectively. They also have access to the sensitive locations where they are deployed to protect. Having reviewed the regulatory regimes of other essential services sectors and the prevailing operating environment, we felt that we should update the APF controls in the PFA, to ensure that the controls remain effective.

Currently, the PFA requires an APF employer to obtain the Minister’s approval before the APF employer is acquired by any other person. The Minister’s approval is also required before one becomes a substantial shareholder of an APF employer. Going forward, we will make these controls more holistic.

First, before a person acquires the business of an APF employer, clause 21 requires both the person and the APF employer to seek approval from the Minister.

Second, clause 21 will require the chairman and directors of an APF employer to be approved by the Commissioner of Police, on top of the existing requirement for the CEO to be approved.

Third, clause 22 will require a person to notify the Commissioner after becoming a 5% controller of an APF employer and to seek the Minister’s approval before becoming a 25%, 50% or indirect controller, or ceasing to be a 50% or 75% controller. These thresholds, which take reference from the legislation of other essential services sectors, ensure that only trusted agents can have the ability to influence and direct actions of the APF. Clause 19 imposes a requirement on APF employers to inform the Commissioner after becoming aware of such transactions. This provides another layer to detect any potential attempts to circumvent our reporting and approval requirements.

There may be circumstances, such as public emergencies, where it is crucial that we ensure the continuity of security services provided by the APFs. Clause 24 provides for the Minister to issue a special administration order to allow the affairs of an APF employer to be managed by the Commissioner or an appointed person. This regime is found in other essential services sectors, to ensure no disruptions to the provision of these services.

MHA will also update the penalties for offences and infringements in relation to APF employers and controllers.

Finally, clauses 25 and 26 update existing powers to investigate and to make regulations, to reflect the changes in APF controls.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with the evolving security landscape, our laws in relation to SPF have to be kept up-to-date, so that it is well-poised to tackle any challenges. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: We move on with the Second Reading for the Police Force (Amendment) Bill. Mr Desmond Choo.

6.41 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a board director of Surbana Jurong Pte Ltd which owns Aetos Holdings Pte Ltd, an Auxiliary Police Force.

The Bill marks another important step ahead in protecting the safety and security of Singaporeans and enforcement officers. It is perhaps also most opportune during the 200th year of the establishment of the Singapore Police Force (SPF).

The enhancement of the SPF’s operational capabilities is greatly welcomed. Section 114A now explicitly affirms the protection of Police officers from personal liability. Officers must be assured that they are protected so that they can discharge their duties without the nagging worries of personal liability while legitimately carrying out their duties. We note that this has been carefully calibrated: greater protection is afforded to our officers but balanced by criminal liability and disciplinary actions to prevent and punish those who flagrantly abuse their powers in bad faith.

Our officers do not operate in a risk-free, benign and simplistic environment. They often have to rely on their training, exercise judgement and take on certain risks, especially in critical, complex and time-sensitive situations. In my years of running operations in the Police Force, I have seen that even the best officers could and would make mistakes. And these mistakes were crucial to the Police's collective learning. Mistakes can also come from taking well-managed risks.

Nothing affects the ability of an officer to discharge his duties more than knowing that the law does not protect them or is even against them. I hope that these considerations can be included in the upcoming regulations to be prescribed by the Ministry in determining what constitutes "good faith" and "reasonable care". These regulations should also not be unnecessarily rigid or prescriptive such that they stifles execution in fluid operational situations. Yet, neither could it be so broad as to leave practitioners directionless. Can the Minister share what might some of these regulations be? What were examples of cases that the officers did not act in good faith or reasonable care?

Enforcement officers work in a hierarchy with clear chains of command. They are usually either guided by supervisors or Standard Operating Procedures. If there is, indeed, a situation where an officer did not act in good faith and/or reasonable care, then what is also the liability of officers in the chain of command? I hope that officers do not lose operational effectiveness in becoming overly circumspect in guiding their officers or executing their duties.

Sir, I also seek a few clarifications and suggestions on the amendments for the Ministry’s consideration.

My first suggestion relates to motorists who evade road barriers. Under section 26(8)(a), a person guilty of evading a road barrier faces a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to a term of seven years, or both. The Mackenzie Road incident in 2017, which left two of our officers injured, has shown us how brazen a minority of motorists can be in evading road barriers. Evasion not only reflects intent to conceal criminality but can also cause considerable danger and inconvenience. Could the Ministry consider imposing a minimum punishment, including a mandatory jail term, for evading road barriers?

I believe this would serve as a forceful deterrent, demonstrating the Ministry's zero-tolerance stance towards such acts.

My next suggestion relates to the liability of employers of Auxiliary Police Forces, or APFs, under section 87(9). At present, liability under section 87(9) is not explicit within the following provisions: sections 87(5), (7) and (8). These subsections are important in ensuring that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) retains regulatory oversight over how APFs are run. For example, section 87(7) underlines the need for Singaporeans to retain the controlling interests in APF companies. Should we attach legal liabilities for infringing the above-mentioned provisions?

Can I also clarify that section 88 also applies to entities and persons with indirect control over the board of the employer of the Auxiliary Police Forces? For example, company A has an indirect control over the employer of the APF via a controlling stake in the parent company owning the employer of the APFs? Ultimately, the Ministry should be afforded greater regulatory oversight over APFs, ensuring that APFs maintain the highest standards expected.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at its core, passing this Bill will strengthen our ability to keep the people of Singapore safe by judiciously strengthening the operational readiness of the SPF and the Ministry's oversight over APFs. Our officers must be provided with the full armour of the law to take the stand against criminals and discharge their duties. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

6.47 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill. These clarifications pertain to three areas. First, the delegation of powers to civilian officers; second, the conduct of roadblocks; and third, the new powers to be given to Commercial Affairs Officers and Special Police Officers.

First, delegation of powers to civilian officers. Under the existing Act, the powers of the Commissioner (CP) may be delegated by him to a Police officer not below the rank of superintendent. In the case of the Deputy Commissioner (DCP), his powers may be delegated by CP to a Police officer not below the rank of an assistant superintendent.

Clause 5 of the Bill will change the position to enable such powers of the CP or DCP to be delegated to non-Police personnel who are performing duties in the Police Force not below the prescribed grade. In the Ministry's media release on the Bill on 5 July, it was clarified that this provision would allow delegation of CP’s or DCP’s powers to civilian officers in leadership positions within the SPF.

I am somewhat concerned about what this change will entail. For instance, is it envisaged that the command of the force at the highest levels could conceivably be delegated to civilian officers from time to time? If this is so, I wonder how well this will go down amongst uniformed officers.

Sir, we assume that Police training is a critical prerequisite for exercising Police powers, let alone for commanding those who exercise such powers. Further, developing Police leadership skills is a specialised field that, in recent years, has been spearheaded by the Police Psychological Services Division. The assessments require potential Police leaders to be put through simulations of incident management at the frontline and officers are also continually developed for Police leadership. There is also an organisational culture amongst uniformed personnel which can be quite distinct from civilians working in the same organisation.

That being the case, one has to wonder about the delegation of Police leadership powers at the highest level to civilians. While these civilians may be senior enough in grade, would they have the necessary experience and credibility to exercise such command responsibilities?

Although there are other provisions in the main Act that allow for assignment of powers to civilians, they are usually clearly scoped. For instance, section 18 of the Act enables the Minister to appoint civilians to exercise powers to grant licences. To expect civilians to exercise such administrative powers seems unobjectionable, compared with the prospect of them exercising command or frontline powers.

Sir, my view is that the scope of clause 5 is not clear as the wording is not qualified. A further explanation of what is envisaged would be necessary. Earlier in the Second Reading speech, the Minister of State did reiterate or confirm that certain powers of the CP would be non-delegable. Where are we to find this list for clarification?

Next, conduct of roadblocks. Clause 6 of the Bill makes changes to the provision on conducting roadblocks. Under the amendments, it is much more explicit what drivers and Police officers can and cannot do. This is an improvement.

Sir, I have a query about the proposed section 26(6), which is new. This sub-section will make it an offence for pedestrians travelling in the direction of a roadblock to cross the barrier and subjects pedestrians to the officers’ instructions as well. Earlier, the Minister of State explained that one of the targets for this provision are car drivers who attempt to abandon their cars and escape on foot. Could he clarify whether there are other categories of pedestrians who are being envisioned by this new provision?

Finally, Police powers to Commercial Affairs Officers (CAOs) and Special Constabulary. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill propose to expand the powers of CAOs and Special Police Officers (SPOs). These clauses will empower these officers not just to do investigations but to exercise all Police powers, including the power of arrest without warrant, and have similar powers of search, forced entry and so on.

From my understanding, CAD has had Police officers attached to it since it was formed. This arrangement was made precisely because the CAO’s powers were limited; when it was time to do raids, the Police officers attached to CAD would accompany the investigators in charge to exercise their full powers. My understanding is that this arrangement has worked for many years.

Sir, may I ask what has motivated the change to give CAOs and SPOs full Police powers now? Is this due to manpower shortage issues or some other operational reason?

6.53 pm

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Police Force (Amendment) Bill will enable the SPF to continue to keep Singapore safe and secure in an increasingly complex operating environment. On the whole, I do support the Bill. However, there are certain queries or concerns I have which I will put forth.

Firstly, I have some concerns for section 17 which empowers the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner to delegate their powers to non-Police personnel in leadership positions within SPF if they are unable to carry out their duties. Currently, the Commissioner may only delegate his and the Deputy Commissioner's powers to Police officers in leadership positions within SPF. Non-Police personnel may not have the same experiences as a Police officer. Therefore, I would like to clarify in what instances the Minister of State envisages the need to execute section 17.

Secondly, I would like to refer to section 26, which allows forced entry in order to protect the life, health or safety of a person. I feel this is especially pertinent and important in domestic violence cases where the victim may be in imminent danger. Just in January this year, the Minister of State for Home Affairs Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim had said there was a 10% increase in family violence cases every month between April and December last year. Having this amendment will add another layer of protection to the victims as it allows the Police officers to render help immediately as time may be of the essence in such cases.

However, I would still call for caution when executing forced entry. There should be clear guidelines on what is considered a reasonable situation for it and all officers should be suitably trained before being able to exercise these powers. Limits should be clearly stated. This may be particularly important in domestic violence cases where it is not clear or easy to determine if a crime is being committed in the premises.

Additionally, in cases of forced entry, there may be circumstances in which there may be damage to the premises, or instances when the forced entry is actually unwarranted. I would, therefore, like to clarify if there is proper recourse available to the premise owner in such cases.

Thirdly, I welcome the fact that forced entry is not applicable to persons who may be attempting suicide. I do agree that these are very complex and, possibly, emotionally-charged situations. Officers who do not understand the ramifications of forcing entry into premises occupied by a suicidal person may run the risk of making matters worse. The person they are trying to help may end up seriously injured or dead, with the officer as a contributing factor, intentionally or otherwise.

For example, in February, officers had to force their way into a Toa Payoh flat after a 64-year-old man locked himself in his room and threatened to commit suicide. The man charged towards the officers and allegedly stabbed a Police officer in the thigh.

I would like to clarify, though, whether units, such as the Crisis Negotiation Unit, are, today, already empowered to force entry to premises in attempted suicide cases, given that attempted suicide has been decriminalised since 1 January 2020. And if they do have the requisite powers, what sort of legal protections are afforded to them in the event their actions lead to undesirable consequences for the suicidal individual?

Lastly, for section 120A, which relates to the granting of permission for the sale or manufacture of Police uniform or insignia, may I suggest that the word "written" be inserted before the word "permission" in the revised section, meaning the section should be amended to read, "has the written permission of the Commissioner" for clarity and transparency of procedure?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all in all, I believe the amendments will allow the Police to carry out their functions more effectively and, therefore, I support the Bill.

Before ending, I would also like to congratulate the Singapore Police Force on celebrating their 200th Anniversary. May they continue their good work for many more years to come.

6.56 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the empowerment of our officers in order to achieve more efficient response to emergencies and assist people in distress. This measure will help to save lives and prevent tragedies.

I have been concerned about the safety of Police officers on duty at roadblocks which are necessary to deter drink-driving, illegally-modified vehicles and associated offences.

I have some questions. In the last five years, how many roadblock operations were there and how many offenders had been caught?

Will the empowerment of the APFs be helpful in supporting more roadblock operations at problematic road segments? I am referring to those which many residents provide feedback about, particularly speeding and noisy modified vehicles.

Would the Ministry consider allowing APFs to carry out such operations independently so as to achieve a greater deterrent effect?

In addition, will the Police look into more transportable and solid barriers to minimise the risk to the lives of the Police on duty at roadblocks and to deter dash-throughs, such as by putting up impact absorbers used by contractors on highways while carrying out construction works?

Will such operations be effective against motorcyclists who have more avenues to evade the roadblocks?

I would also like to ask if the Police will equip all the staff and officers, including SPOs and CAOs, with cameras and recorders. The records should be kept independently for safekeeping as evidence to prevent wrongful accusations and misuse. Such information shall not be shared, unless with permission and when needed to respond to fake news and wrongful accusations. Safeguarding of these recordings is also necessary to prevent cyberattacks and manipulation that could jeopardise the safety of operations.

While SPF is provided with the power to retain the services of Police officers in times of crises, it should also be provided with an alternative for such officers to be redeployed to other appropriate services. This is because commitment and dedication are required to maintain the integrity and efficiency of operations during a crises. Officers should be able to address an appeal board for reviews of their cases.

With that, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Police Force for keeping Singapore safe.

7.00 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Police Force (Amendment) Bill introduces, inter alia, new provisions as regards our APFs. I will cover three areas as regards these provisions. The first is the provisions to do with tightening control over the controllers of APFs. The second is with regards to advertising for security services by APFs. The third is the introduction of a special administrative order or other order that the Minister may make under certain circumstances.

Sir, I declare at this juncture my interest as the President of the Security Association Singapore.

Sir, the first set of amendments are in the new section 88 and tightens controls over the controllers of APFs such that any person who comes in, between 5% and 25% control of an APF must notify the Minister, and a controller above 25% control of an APF must seek prior approval from the Minister. Sir, I support these changes. Our APFs are an extension of the Singapore Police Force and it is critical to ensure that there is accountability to the Minister for Home Affairs as regards control, so as to ensure that our APFs are not diverted from their missions.

A second area is the introduction as a new section 86A of restrictions on advertising, where only an APF may carry on the functions of an APF and advertise or, in any other way, hold out that it carries on or is willing to carry on the functions of an APF. This is an important new section, which also provides sufficiently heavy penalties for offenders.

On this particular amendment, Sir, I have a point of clarification. Some of our APFs, like Certis and AETOS are both employers of armed APFs and owners of security agencies that carry out unarmed services, but which bear their same logo and same name. In this regard, APFs must exercise caution in how they advertise and hold out their non-APF businesses in such manner that there is no conflation between their APF business and non-APF business. MHA and the Commissioner may wish to consider how to ensure this, perhaps through the promulgation of guidelines or further regulations.

The third set of amendments introduces under the New Division 1C of Part IX, a Special Administration Order or other order to transfer management of an APF from an employer to the Commissioner or anyone appointed by the Minister. This can be done in situations where the employer is unable to pay its debts, during a public emergency, or when the Minister deems it in the public interest. This new proviso ensures that the provision of essential security services remains unhindered and coordinated across employers of APFs, especially in view of the central role that our APFs have played in our COVID-19 response, which I will elaborate on.

Sir, these amendments proposed in the Bill are timely and important to ensure our APFs' continued ability to contribute to the safety and security of Singapore and Singaporeans.

The utility of our APFs was made apparent recently, as Certis took up duties urgently needed for the issuance, enforcement and execution of quarantine orders and quarantine operations of the Ministry of Health (MOH). These services included administration of quarantine orders to Persons under Quarantine (PUQs) and the enforcement of such orders as directed by MOH.

In a recent article in June 2021 by Yahoo, several persons affected by such orders described the effort as "disorganised" and officers as "unhelpful" and who caused frustration and confusion amidst PUQs.

Sir, our APOs have worked hard to transition and learn new skills to take on these new COVID-19-specific tasks and it is important that we acknowledge the difficulty of carrying out, at short notice, what can be accurately described as a herculean task. I thus urge Singaporeans to be empathetic when interacting with our officers as they go about carrying out their duties in this regard. I was also happy to read in that same Yahoo article that MOH acknowledged the concerns raised and said it would continue to improve communications between the various agencies involved, including Certis.

Alongside Certis, AETOS and SATS, APOs also stepped up in our battle against COVID-19, being deployed at various locations across the island, including Government quarantine facilities, floating hotels under the Maritime and Port Authority, airports, military camps and high-risk areas like the red migrant worker dormitories last year. Such high-risk locations meant that officers had to don full personal protective equipment for their entire 12-hour shifts, as they assisted with temperature checks, social distancing measures and escorting workers who had tested positive.

Sir, in peacetime, our APFs are equally busy keeping us safe and secure. They are part of the private security industry and have been situated on the frontlines, engaging in traffic and crowd control, event security, providing remote surveillance and enforcing security rules and regulations. Furthermore, they are strategically relied on to provide protective security for many important and sensitive Government and civilian institutions, such as at our airports, naval installations and checkpoints. While some APFs provide extremely specialised services, as private entities, they are freed from various obligations and restrictions and can operate flexibly and competitively. This is precisely why, Sir, it is extremely important that we ensure that there are sufficient controls over the employers of APFs or the controllers of APFs.

Sir, as front-facing personnel on the ground, our APOs sometimes face abuse from members of the public. In December last year, an APO was headbutted several times by a member of the public. In January this year, another APO was punched on the head while carrying out safe distancing checks. I am heartened that swift action was taken and, appropriately, heavy punishment meted out.

In this regard, Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all our APOs for carrying out their duties diligently and professionally during this pandemic and, even before that, to keep Singapore secure and orderly. I trust we will see our APOs and, for that matter, our security officers, increasingly not just as partners of the Home Team but as part of the Home Team.

Sir, our APFs are an armed and highly recognisable form of authority in Singapore. Due to their professionalism and hard work over the decades, our APFs and APOs are respected and trusted by Singaporeans. We must not take this for granted. In this regard, today's amendments to strengthen control over the APFs to ensure their continued operations as going concerns and that they stay true to their mission are timely and welcomed. I also welcome the other amendments that strengthen our Police Force. Sir, I support the Bill.

7.07 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The amendments will enable SPF to continue keeping Singapore safe and secure amidst an increasingly complex operating environment. I am in support of the amendments. However, I would like to raise three clarifications: One, more clarity on the power to enter any place in case of an emergency; two, the delegation of Commissioner of Police (CP) and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) powers; and three, protecting officers from liability for acts done in good faith.

Firstly, it is important for us to update and equip our Police officers with the necessary powers so that they can respond swiftly in order to protect and save lives. As such, it is appropriate that we do allow our Police officers to enter any place, in case of medical emergency, to protect persons from injury or death. This would allow our Police officers the necessary access in situations where lives may be at stake. I would like to clarify on the definition of a "medical emergency". What constitutes a medical emergency? And how would a Police officer assess the medical emergency behind locked doors?

Secondly, the CP is a respected public officer who wields considerable authority and is appointed by none other than our own President. Currently, the CP may only delegate his and the DCP's powers to Police officers in leadership positions within SPF. However, with the new amendments, the CP is empowered to delegate CP and DCP powers to civilian officers in leadership positions within SPF. In his opening statement, Minister of State Desmond Tan had shared that one instance in which the CP may consider delegating his power is when the CP delegates his or her power to the Director of Commercial Affairs to issue SOPs. Can the Minister clarify on the type of powers which the CP cannot delegate to civilian officers?

Will the CP or DCP delegate the power to investigate scams, financial or cybercrimes, given the increase in the number of such crimes which may require a different skillset from the traditional policing? Do we have a shortage of this skillset within our current men in blue and how do we ensure that delegating these powers do not dilute the investigative capability of our Police from solving scams, financial or cybercrimes that are getting increasingly complicated?

The amendment also seeks to "Make explicit the protection for Police officers, Special Police officers (SPOs), Commercial Affairs officers (CAOs), Intelligence Officers and Forensic Specialists from liability for acts and omissions done in good faith and with reasonable care." Currently, our officers rely on the defence of necessity under common law. The amendment seeks to codify and enhance existing protection for our officers in their execution of the Police Force Act (PFA) or any other written law. This will allow them to carry out their lawful duties with greater assurance. Nevertheless, officers may still be taken to task and face disciplinary actions or even charged for criminal offences if they are found to have acted inappropriately.

Given the recent false allegations on social media against our Police Force in the recent months, it underscores the importance of protecting our men in blue in the course of their duty. An officer faces many important decisions daily. An officer, for example, who has been dispatched to a road traffic accident and is the first officer at the scene, has only a split second to decide on what to do next. While awaiting the arrival of paramedics, the officer, having been trained in CPR, may need to provide first-aid to the victim. While administering CPR and trying to resuscitate the victim through chest compressions, the officer may have cracked the victim's ribs. The victim may or may not have survived, but should we not protect our officer for acting in good faith and using as much care as he possibly could at that moment?

The last few weeks also saw an example where a shirtless man was acting aggressively towards our Police officers. The officers were unable to calm the man down, he continued to behave aggressively and, finally, tried to attack our officers. At that point, there was no other option for our officers but to tase the person. What if the individual who was tased had died due to a pre-existing medical condition? Should the officer not be protected from liability? It stands to reason that if the officer had acted in good faith and followed all the rules of engagement and SOPs, he should not be personally liable in these instances. This amendment would undoubtedly protect and reassure our Police officers as they go about their duties. Should this assurance be extended to our Prison wardens and other officers in the Home Team, too?

While we increase the protection to our officers, we must never allow errant officers who act inappropriately to hide behind this. Hence, the protection from liability in the act of good faith must be balanced with stiffer penalties if this is abused. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is important for us to equip our Police officers with the necessary powers so that they can respond swiftly in order to protect and save lives. As such, it is appropriate that we do allow Police officers to enter any place in case of medical emergencies, to protect persons from injury or death. I would like to seek clarification on the definition of a "medical emergency". What constitutes a medical emergency? And how would a Police officer assess the medical emergency behind locked doors?

This amendment also seeks to protect Police officers from liability for acts and omissions done in good faith. This will allow our officers to carry out their duties with greater assurance. Given the recent false allegations on social media in the recent months against our Police force, it underscores the importance of protecting our Police officers in the course of their duty.

For example, an officer who has been dispatched to a road traffic accident has only a split second to decide on what to do next. While waiting for the arrival of paramedics, the officer may need to provide first aid to the victim. While administering CPR, the officer may have cracked the victim’s ribs. The victim may or may not have survived, but should we not protect our officer for acting in good faith and using as much care as he possibly could at that moment?

This amendment will, undoubtedly, protect and reassure our officers as they carry out their duties. Can this assurance be extended to prison wardens and other officers in the Home Team, too?

As we enhance and strengthen protection for our officers, we must never allow irresponsible and errant officers to escape punishment. These officers should be fined and disciplined or prosecuted for criminal offences. If they are found to have acted inappropriately, they should face stiffer penalties.

(In English): Allow me to conclude in English, Sir. The amendments will enable SPF to continue keeping Singapore safe and secure amidst an increasingly complex operating environment. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all our Police officers for keeping us safe. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Resumption of Debate on Question [2 August 2021],

"That the Bill be now read a second time." – [Minister for Home Affairs].

Question again proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

12.33 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this afternoon, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Patrick Tay and yourself will be delivering a Motion to commemorate 200 years of the Singapore Police Force (SPF). They will honour the contributions of SPF and its officers for keeping Singapore one of the safest countries in the world.

I echo your sentiment. In addition, I wish to commend SPF for not only keeping our country safe but also for taking steps to make their investigations a fairer process.

I previously spoke up to support the video-recording of Police interviews. It makes Police interviews more transparent. I am glad SPF is making efforts to ensure its investigations provide due process to those interviewed by the Police.

Sir, I have three points to make on this Bill.

My first point is about equipping Police with life-saving skills. The new section 26E will allow a Police officer to force entry into a place on reasonable suspicion that assistance may be required for injury or poor health to protect the life, health or safety of the person. This is similar to the powers the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers currently have under the Civil Defence Act to break into any place to protect the life, health or safety of individuals.

Providing the powers of forced entry gives the officers access to the individual in need of assistance. However, just as important is equipping the officer with the skills to provide the assistance required. SCDF has a clear mandate to protect life, health and safety and its officers are appropriately trained. Can the Minister of State share if Police officers are already receiving training or will receive training to equip them with the skills needed to protect life, health or safety, once they have gained entry?

My second point is about preparing Police officers to appropriately use their new powers. The amendments in this Bill expand the Police powers of the Special Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers. In particular, it gives Special Police Officers the same powers as regular Police officers. It gives Commercial Affairs Officers who currently only have investigation powers more powers, such as the power to arrest persons who possess stolen items.

However, a Police officer's powers also come with specific safeguards, including requirements and restrictions under the Criminal Procedure Code and Police General Orders. Can the Minister of State confirm that the new powers given to Special Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers also mean that all the accompanying safeguards apply to them? Can the Minister of State also share what plans there are to provide training for Special Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers on their new powers and their accompanying safeguards?

My third point is about maintaining proper staffing during a crisis period. The new section 13A provides that a notice to resign from SPF given by a Police officer may be refused by the Commissioner of Police during a crisis period.

I understand that in times of crisis, it may be important to retain the services of Police officers. But does it make sense to have Police officers stay in the force when they have clearly indicated their unwillingness to do so? Is there a risk that uncommitted Police officers hinder rather than help their comrades during times of crisis?

Can the Minister of State share in what extreme circumstances do we envision the Police Commissioner refusing such notices to resign? In addition, can the Minister of State share what plans he has to ensure that the SPF will be adequately staffed to withstand times of crisis, apart from forcing uncommitted Police officers to stay?

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill and I again thank our Police officers for keeping all of us safe.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

12.36 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a Police officer for 20 years, I have seen first-hand how the risks and threats to our domestic safety and security have evolved over the years and how our Singapore Police Force has strived to constantly keep themselves a step ahead of the criminals and those who wish to cause harm to us. The proposed amendments to enhance SPF's operational capabilities and readiness are, therefore, timely as they will enable the Force to better keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe and secure.

My speech today seeks to gain clarity on why we are increasing the penalties for evading roadblocks and to better understand the rationale for increasing the Police powers for some of our civilian officers, and whether we can better deploy our Police National Service personnel.

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

The Bill proposes to increase the penalties for evading roadblocks from the current maximum jail term of 12 months and/or fine of S$5,000 to a maximum jail term of seven years and/or fine of S$10,000.

While I understand that the new penalties take reference from the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duties, this is a seven-times increase in maximum jail term. I would like to raise several questions to better understand the need for such a steep increase.

How many cases of drivers evading a police roadblock have been recorded in the past five years? Are we seeing a significant upward trend, which has necessitated this sharp increase in penalties to send a deterrent message? How many incidents of roadblock evasion have left our Police officers seriously injured?

A scan through our mainstream media articles found that the last publicised case of Police officers injured by a person evading a roadblock was in June 2017 when Lianhe Wanbao reported that a driver had dashed through a roadblock and injured two Police officers in a violent struggle when being arrested. This could be the same case cited by the Minister of State yesterday in his opening speech.

In the event where the actions of the driver result in injury, the Police could consider and would probably have done so in the past to serve a charge of voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty or voluntarily causing grievous hurt if the injuries are serious. Is it, therefore, necessary to raise the penalties for evading a roadblock by seven times?

Next, I would like to better understand the need to confer more Police powers to civilian Commercial Affairs Officers (CAOs).

I was the primary staff officer who coordinated the reconstitution of the Commercial Affairs Department to become a part of the Singapore Police Force back in 2000. In the process, I helped to put up the paper to establish the CAO scheme of service.

CAOs are meant to be specialists who perform an important role in combating white collar crime and their good work is vital in helping to maintain Singapore's status as the region's premier financial and commercial hub. When establishing the CAO scheme, we knew that we had to look beyond the profile of typical Police officers and attract local talents in law, finance and economics to fight the ever-evolving complex financial crimes ranging from investment and securities fraud to transnational scams.

The Bill proposes to provide CAOs with more Police powers, such as the power to arrest, to enter a place to investigate an arrestable offence and requiring suspects to attend Court, among others. This is a significant extension of Police powers to civilian officers and possibly unprecedented.

CAOs are civilian officers, not Police officers, and there were reasons why they were given only certain Police powers restricted to investigating offences under the Criminal Procedure Code when the CAO scheme was first established. These were deemed then to be sufficient for the CAOs to carry out their investigation duties effectively, supported by trained and armed Police colleagues. With this amendment, will CAOs be deemed as Police officers henceforth?

The additional powers also come with increased risks. Would CAOs need to be armed to protect themselves? To exercise the power of arrest, should we require CAOs to learn defence tactics and pass a yearly Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT), much like what regular Police officers are required to do today? Would a CAO candidate's Physical Employment Standards (PES) status be now factored into the hiring process?

We established the CAO scheme in 2000 to attract a special group of individuals to join the Police to fight complex white-collar crime. I recall we started with around 30 CAOs back in 2000. I believe the number would have grown over the past 20 years. But is that number sufficient to sustain the scheme of service? What is the attrition rate of CAOs, especially in their first three years of service?

Rather than mould civilian CAOs into pseudo-Police officers, why not consider posting trained, experienced Police officers with the requisite law, finance and economics backgrounds to the Commercial Affairs Department to supplement its current investigative resources? I strongly believe the Force has today many qualified uniformed men and women capable of handling white-collar crime investigations.

The Bill also proposes to expand the powers of our Police full-time National Servicemen (PNSFs) and Police reservists (PNSmen). I support this and I have a few suggestions on how we could better empower them so that they have a fulfilling time serving their National Service obligation.

During my time in the Force, I observed that PNSFs and PNSmen were more motivated when deployed to perform tasks that were relevant and related to either their area of study or their work experience. Beyond expanding their powers as proposed in the Bill, can we create a more structured deployment scheme to better leverage the talents of both our PNSFs and PNSmen?

One good example is the MINDEF's Cyber NSF Scheme, which I believe the Minister of State would be familiar with. It allows those with cybersecurity and computer science backgrounds to apply for a vocation as a Cyber Operator during their National Service.

Perhaps those with law or finance backgrounds can be deployed to the Commercial Affairs Department while those with computer science training can be deployed to help strengthen the SPF's cybersecurity teams.

We should strive to leverage the strengths and talents of our PNSFs and PNSmen to augment the good work of our regular Police officers.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Police Force Act are timely as they would allow the SPF to keep up with new threats and continue keeping Singapore safe and secure. But as we expand the powers of various categories of officers, we must ensure that we are able to continue to attract the best candidates to perform the specialist roles in SPF.

We can and should also better deploy our PNSFs and PNSmen to maximise their fullest potential because every Police officer matters. Notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.

12.46 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their views and for their support for the Bill. Please allow me to address their questions in turn.

First, on roadblock evasion. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the enhanced regime against roadblock evasion will apply to motorcyclists. The short answer is yes. The enhanced regime applies to all modalities of roadblock evasion and will cover all types of vehicles.

Mr Gan also asked how many roadblocks were conducted in the past five years. Mr Gan and Mr Melvin Yong also asked how many cases of roadblock evasion were detected, resulted in serious injuries for Police officers, and whether it is necessary to raise the penalties for roadblock evasion when the offender can be charged for other offences like voluntarily causing hurt when their actions result in injury.

From 2016 to 2020, SPF conducted about 8,000 roadblocks per year. There were 33 cases of roadblock evasion where the offender was convicted or issued with a stern warning. Of these, there were two cases where the roadblock evasion directly resulted in injury for Police officers. Motorists who deliberately evade roadblocks seriously endanger the lives of the Police officers as well as other road users in the vicinity of the roadblock.

In instances where hurt is caused to Police officers, it is true that we can take action using general application provisions like voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty, or voluntarily causing grievous hurt. However, the action of roadblock evasion, by itself, is a serious and risky behaviour. We should not rely on the offender also committing other offences to be able to take the person to task. Given the high risks, the Bill increases the penalties significantly to strengthen the deterrence against roadblock evasion.

Mr Desmond Choo suggested to introduce a mandatory minimum jail sentence for the offence of roadblock evasion. We agree with Mr Choo that motorists who evade roadblocks not only obstruct the course of justice, but also show disregard for the safety of other road users. That said, we reserve mandatory minimum jail sentences for the most egregious offences. For driving-related offences, those that attract mandatory minimum jail sentences are dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt. Those offences involve death or serious injuries.

While we agree with Mr Choo that evasion of roadblock can result in dire consequences, we do not think it warrants mandatory minimum jail sentences, at least for now. We will monitor the situation after the increase in penalties takes effect.

Mr Gan shared his concerns about the safety of Police officers deployed at roadblocks and asked how many motorists at these roadblocks were detected for driving under the influence or having illegally modified vehicles.

On driving under the influence, SPF detected an average of 700 cases per year from 2018 to 2020. On illegally modified vehicles, LTA does not have a breakdown of the number of cases detected at roadblocks, as they do not conduct roadblocks per se.

Mr Gan also asked if SPF would look into introducing barriers made of hardier material to minimise the risk to Police officers. The safety of our Police officers is of paramount importance. For this reason, Police officers deployed to roadblock operations are equipped with reflective vests and traffic wands. Emergency light beacons are also set up in the area to ensure they are highly visible.

We also train our Police officers to react to situations where errant motorists might endanger the officers' safety. Our officers will take into consideration factors such as prevailing traffic conditions and perform risk assessments when conducting roadblock operations.

On Mr Gan's suggestion to use hardier barriers, SPF will continue to review its procedures and processes to carry out roadblock operations in a safe and effective manner.

Mr Gan also suggested that Auxiliary Police Officers, or APOs, can help to support SPF's roadblock operations, to better detect motorists who speed or drive in illegally modified vehicles.

Currently, the SPF only deploys Police officers to roadblock operations. Roadblock operations are inherently riskier, as officers may come across crimes such as possession of weapons or drugs. Hence, it requires Police officers who have undergone the appropriate training to handle such serious cases.

Next, Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the new offence which targets pedestrians near barriers in section 26 of the PFA. We would like to clarify that this provision is not meant to target pedestrians in relation to a roadblock. Rather, section 26(7) targets members of the public who fail to proceed and stop before reaching barriers or cordons meant to control human traffic and remain there until permitted to continue. This refers to cordons that are used to ensure the safety of bystanders or control human traffic near crime scenes or high security areas, rather than roadblocks for motorists.

Next, on providing Police officers with the power to make forced entry in medical emergencies – a number of Members brought this up.

Mr Sharael Taha raised questions regarding what constitutes a medical emergency and how Police officers assess a medical emergency behind locked doors. Dr Shahira Abdullah also suggested having clear guidelines on when Police officers should reasonably suspect that a medical emergency has taken place, before making forced entry.

Clause 7 of the Bill makes clear that a Police officer can make forced entry when he reasonably suspects that a person requires assistance because of any injury or poor state of health; that he is unable to enter the place; and is of the view that entry is necessary to protect the person's life, health or safety. This allows Police officers to make forced entry for a variety of medical emergencies, ranging from a stroke to a serious fall.

Given that each case of medical emergency is unique and time-sensitive, instead of having prescriptive conditions, Police officers will take into consideration a variety of factors before making forced entry. For example, they look out for signs of distress such as audible shouts for help and seek more information from next-of-kin and neighbours to get a clearer picture of the situation.

Mr Louis Ng and Dr Shahira asked if Police officers already receive training to equip them with the skills needed to attend to medical emergencies. The answer is yes. All frontline Police officers are equipped with basic first aid and CPR skills and are required to undergo regular recertification to ensure their skills remain up-to-date and relevant. Police officers are also instructed to immediately activate SCDF's emergency medical services where necessary.

In cases where Police officers make forced entry and it turns out to be unwarranted, Dr Shahira asked if there would be proper recourse for the owner. There may, indeed, be instances when SPF will provide compensation for damage to property. However, such situations will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Dr Shahira also spoke on whether Police officers should make forced entry in cases of attempted suicide and asked if these officers are given protection.

We would like to clarify that Police officers already have the power to make forced entry for attempted suicide under sections 26A and 26B of the PFA. We share Dr Shahira's concern that such cases are highly complex. For this reason, SPF has officers who are specially trained to intervene in attempted suicide cases, to prevent harm and prevent the loss of life. Where necessary, the Crisis Negotiation Unit will be activated to render assistance.

Police officers who make forced entry in cases of attempted suicide are already protected from liability under the common law defence of necessity and will continue to be protected in future for acts done in good faith and with reasonable care, when the new section 114A of the PFA comes into effect.

Moving on, I will address Members' questions on according SPOs and CAOs with more necessary powers.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked why we are providing CAOs with full policing powers. Mr Melvin Yong asked if CAOs will be deemed as Police officers and be armed, given that the Bill accords CAOs with more policing powers which come with additional risks. Mr Yong also asked about the number of CAOs in SPF and the attrition rate for new CAOs and suggested deploying Police officers in the Commercial Affairs Department to supplement CAOs.

Before I answer Ms Lim's and Mr Yong's questions, I would like to clarify that we are not providing CAOs with full policing powers. While CAOs will be given more powers of arrest, search and other administrative powers, they will not be given powers not relevant to their work, such as the power to seize offensive weapons.

To elaborate on why we are according CAOs with more powers, I would like to provide a backdrop of our crime trend. In recent years, commercial and financial crimes have increasingly become an area of concern. Not only has there been an uptick in such crimes, they have also become more complex in nature. Therefore, it is necessary to equip our CAOs with more powers that are required to perform their duties, to enhance their operational efficiency.

On Mr Yong's suggestion to deploy regular Police officers, CAD already comprises a mix of CAOs and regular Police officers, as Ms Lim has also pointed out.

There are currently about 130 CAOs and 90 regular Police officers in CAD. These figures have remained stable in the last five years and the attrition rate for new CAOs has generally been low.

Having both CAOs and regular Police officers in CAD better allows us to bring perpetrators of white-collar crime to justice, as SPF can leverage on CAOs' specialised knowledge in the areas of accounting and finance while tapping on the broader investigation skills that regular Police officers have acquired from investigating into a wide range of crimes.

Given that CAOs have the mandate to deal with white-collar crimes that are typically not violent or confrontational in nature, we assess that there is currently no operational need to deem them as full-fledged Police officers. Hence, we will not be providing them with arms or with the full suite of policing powers, as I earlier mentioned. Furthermore, should the Commercial Affairs Department encounter the need to use a higher level of force, they can leverage on regular Police officers in the Commercial Affairs Department who work alongside CAOs, as Mr Melvin Yong has suggested.

Mr Yong also asked if CAOs will be required to undergo physical tests such as the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) and be of a minimum Physical Employment Standard (PES), to exercise their new powers of arrest.

The answer is no. We would like to clarify that the power of arrest is not new to CAOs. For example, they already have the power to arrest suspects of an arrestable offence under the Criminal Procedure Code. This Bill provides them with more powers of arrest which are relevant in their work, such as to arrest a person reasonably suspected to possess something which is fraudulently obtained.

In any case, I would like to assure Mr Yong that CAOs are required to undergo rigorous training and tests on safely conducting arrests and self-defence before they are allowed to exercise this power on the frontline. For now, we assess that the training is adequate to meet our operational needs and it is not necessary to set an IPPT or PES requirement for CAOs.

We would also like to share that this approach is consistent with other non-uniformed officers who already have similar powers to investigate white-collar crimes. For example, authorised IRAS officers, whose core duty is to investigate tax crimes, are empowered to arrest suspects of serious tax crimes.

Mr Louis Ng asked if there will be safeguards and training for SPOs and CAOs. The SPF has multiple safeguards in place to ensure SPOs and CAOs exercise their new powers safely and in accordance with the law.

First, SPOs and CAOs will be required to undergo rigorous training and tests before they can exercise policing powers. For example, SPOs and CAOs will have to undergo modules on legal knowledge, self-defence and scenario-based training before they are deployed to the frontline.

Second, SPOs and CAOs will be subject to similar safeguards which Police officers are already subject to, such as those under the Criminal Procedure Code. For example, when SPOs and CAOs arrest a suspect, the suspect must not be restrained more than is necessary to prevent his escape, in accordance with section 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Third, SPF has zero tolerance for persons who misuse or abuse their policing powers. SPOs and CAOs who were found to have done so will be subject to strict disciplinary action. For serious cases, they may be subject to criminal proceedings.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if SPF will equip all officers with body-worn cameras to mitigate the risk of wrongful accusations and misuse of powers and if such video footage will be kept safely to prevent cyber attacks and misuse. Currently, our frontline Police officers, including SPOs, are equipped with body-worn cameras to facilitate investigations and the gathering of evidence. Video footages from these cameras are also useful to address allegations of wrongdoing, such as the recent case where our Police officers were falsely accused of abusing their authority to confront an elderly lady in May 2021, when they actually were telling her domestic helper to remind her to wear a mask and even bought her a packet of food. For CAOs, we are reviewing the need to equip them with body-worn cameras, similarly, to aid investigations and prevent allegations.

I would like to assure Mr Gan Thiam Poh that we take the safeguarding of video footages seriously. SPF has in place strict protocols governing the use and access to such data. Typically, SPF only shares data with other Government agencies if provided for under the law. These security measures help to guard against data breaches and the misuse of data.

We note Mr Melvin Yong’s suggestion for SPF to have a more structured deployment scheme to better leverage the talents of our full-time and operationally-ready NSmen. When deploying officers to NS vocations, SPF already takes into consideration factors such as the officer’s skills and aptitude. To better leverage the talents of our NSmen, these officers are provided with multiple pathways within SPF. For example, officers with background in nautical studies may be deployed to the Police Coast Guard, while officers with expertise in photography may be deployed to the Public Affairs Department to create media content. When officers transit to become operationally-ready NSmen, they may be provided with the option to change their vocation based on their skill sets. For example, officers with a background in psychology may serve as counsellors in the Police Psychological Services Department. We will continuously review the deployment process to further improve the NS experience and to optimise our manpower.

On empowering the Commissioner to delegate powers to civilian officers in leadership positions, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Sylvia Lim and Dr Shahira Abdullah asked what type of powers the Commissioner will and will not be able to delegate to civilian officers. Mr Sharael Taha also asked about the circumstances under which the Commissioner will delegate such powers.

The current intent behind clause 5 of the Bill is to allow the Commissioner to delegate more administrative powers, such as that to issue internal orders to civilian officers in leadership positions. To illustrate, the Director of the Commercial Affairs Department, who is a civilian officer, will be able to directly issue SOPs on managing suspects of commercial and financial crimes. Currently, he will need to ask a Police officer to do so on his behalf. Once this provision comes into force, he will no longer need to do so, thus improving operational efficiency. We want to assure the House that the delegation of powers will be carefully considered in the best way possible to achieve our desired outcomes.

It is provided in law that highly sensitive powers which should only be exercised by the Commissioner himself will be non-delegable to either Police officers or even civilian officers. Clause 5 makes explicit that the list of non-delegable powers are those in section 18 and 110A of the PFA, as well as under the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA). For example, this includes the power to give special authorisations to Police officers to impose curfew under POSSPA.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked if SPF intends to allow civilian officers to take over command duties and if civilian officers will have the relevant expertise and credibility to do so. We would like to clarify that SPF already has civilian officers in leadership positions who assume command duties. For example, the current Director of the Commercial Affairs Department is a non-Police officer.

The benefit of civilianising more leadership posts is that SPF can draw from a wider range of experiences, competencies and perspectives, beyond the pool of uniformed officers. This enables SPF to be more diverse, agile and open to transformation and to better achieve its mission of ensuring the safety and security of Singapore.

That said, I would like to assure Ms Sylvia Lim that the intent of clause 5 of the Bill is not to allow civilian officers to exercise the Commissioner's powers of command at the frontline. We recognise that there are powers which require the specialised knowledge of a Police officer who has had years of experience with policing, such as the power to disperse an unlawful assembly by military force. These powers are best exercised by the Commissioner or the Police officers in leadership positions and will remain that way.

Mr Sharael Taha also asked if the Commissioner will delegate the power to investigate commercial, financial and cybercrimes to civilian officers, given the recent uptick in such crimes. I want to clarify that SPF’s Commercial Affairs Department already has civilian officers who have the powers to investigate such commercial and financial crimes. This allows the SPF to draw from a wider pool of skillsets, in order to bring perpetrators of such crimes to justice.

Many Members raised questions about retaining the employment of regular officers during major crises. Mr Louis Ng asked under what circumstances the Commissioner may refuse notices of resignation. To recap, as set out in the Bill, notices of resignation can be refused only under two situations.

First, when the President has issued a Proclamation of Emergency under the Constitution, when she is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security or economic life of Singapore is threatened.

Second, when the Minister for Home Affairs has given an activation order under the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act. Activation orders are only given when a serious incident has occurred, such as a terrorist attack.

Police officers may decide to resign during a crisis for a variety of reasons. In assessing whether to accept or reject a notice of resignation, the Commissioner may take into consideration the reason behind the resignation. For example, if it is due to the Police officer having a medical condition that does not allow him to serve in SPF, the Commissioner will likely accept this resignation.

Mr Louis Ng also asked if Police officers who have indicated their unwillingness to stay in SPF should be retained.

First, I would like to assure the House that our Police officers are extremely dedicated to their duties and I have no doubt that they will rise to the challenge, especially during a crisis. While we do not wish to retain anybody who does not want to serve, we also have to balance against the needs of the society during times of emergency. This is especially important to prevent a scenario where there could be mass resignations that would compromise SPF's operational efficiency in responding to the crisis.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested creating an appeal board to preside over appeals against rejections of notices of resignation and to be redeployed to perform other duties. Given the fast-paced, uncertain and dynamic nature of a crisis, it may not be prudent or even feasible for appeal boards to convene in the thick of the crisis. But that said, we recognise that there may be Police officers who desire to serve the nation and support the efforts to overcome a crisis in other ways, such as in the healthcare sector instead. The Commissioner may take this into consideration when assessing the notice of resignation, along with other factors, such as SPF’s manpower situation and needs.

Should a Police officer’s notice of resignation be rejected, SPF will internally assess his ability to serve in the roles assigned to him. If need be, he may be redeployed in other roles within SPF to more effectively carry out duties.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about SPF’s plans to ensure that SPF will be adequately staffed to withstand crises. During major crises which require more frontline officers, SPF may redeploy more regular Police officers and full-time NSmen from back-end roles to serve at the frontline. SPF may also recall and mobilise operationally-ready NSmen, Volunteer Ex-NSmen and Volunteer Special Constabulary Officers. The wealth of experience these officers have acquired over years of NS and volunteering will help SPF in its efforts to effectively overcome the crisis.

Moving on, I will touch on protecting officers from liability for acts done in good faith and with reasonable care. Mr Desmond Choo asked about the regulations that the Minister for Home Affairs may prescribe in determining what constitutes "good faith and reasonable care". Such matters and circumstances may include the operating environment in which the officer is acting, the standards and practices the officer has to follow and the resources to which the officer has access to.

MHA will be prescribing these in subsidiary legislation to allow for greater flexibility to make refinements over time, given our officers’ constantly changing operating environment and standards in response to the ever-evolving security landscape and threats. More details will be ready in due course, when the subsidiary legislation is formulated.

Mr Desmond Choo also asked for examples where officers did not act in good faith and with reasonable care. In general, such cases are few and far between. But that said, I can give two hypothetical examples. First, if Police officers receive a tip-off that a suspect of a crime is in a building and immediately effect forced entry to arrest him without even first attempting to verify if he was actually inside, the Police officers would not have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Another example is if a Police officer fails to respond to and investigate a 999 distress call by an individual known to SPF as being the target of repeated physical domestic violence and the individual dies from injuries from the abuser.

I want to emphasise that the protection that we will be according to officers is not unconditional and is subject to them acting in good faith and with reasonable care. Making explicit this protection in law will allow our officers to more effectively carry out their duties, such as preventing crime or saving lives, without the distractions and the constant concerns about getting sued or being held liable for injuries or damage to property.

To address Mr Desmond Choo’s question on whether superiors will be held liable if their subordinates did not act in good faith and with reasonable care, this will very much depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, such as whether the superior had knowledge or control over his subordinate’s actions at that point in time or could reasonably be expected to be able to stop or influence his actions.

Mr Sharael Taha asked if this protection will be extended to Prison officers and other Home Team officers. To clarify, many of our Home Team officers already have protections from liability under other legislation. For example, SCDF officers are protected from liability for acts done in good faith and with reasonable care in the execution of the Civil Defence Act and the Fire Safety Act.

For Prison officers, they are currently not explicitly protected in legislation although they are already covered under the common law defence of necessity. MHA will likewise consider making explicit this protection for Prison officers and other Home Team officers in their relevant legislation where opportune, just as we have done so in the PFA for Police officers and the Civil Defence Act for SCDF officers in 2018.

Next, Dr Shahira Abdullah had suggested that persons who manufacture Police uniforms or insignia should seek the Commissioner’s written permission. To clarify, SPF already has in place a transparent framework to regulate the market for Police uniforms or insignia. None of these permissions are given verbally and all are written in black and white. For example, persons who wish to manufacture Police uniforms are required to bid for an open tender. Those who are successful are subject to conditions in the contract, which include the specifications of the uniforms they are allowed to manufacture. Should a person manufacture Police uniforms without the Commissioner’s permission, he will be liable for a fine not exceeding $10,000 or jailed for up to three years, or both.

Next, Mr Desmond Choo asked about legal liabilities for Auxiliary Police Force (APF) employers that infringe sections 87(5), (7) and (8) in clause 21 of the Bill. The existing section 90 already allows the Commissioner to take certain actions if an APF employer infringes any provision in Part IX of the Police Force Act (PFA), which includes clause 21 of the Bill. These actions include suspending or revoking the authorisation for the creation of an APF as well as the imposition of financial penalties on the APF employer.

Mr Desmond Choo also asked if section 88 in clause 22 of the Bill applies to entities and persons with indirect control over the board of the APF employer. I stated earlier that clause 22 will require a person to seek the Minister's approval before becoming an indirect controller as defined in clause 17 of the Bill.

As Mr Raj Joshua Thomas has also commented on the controller requirements, I would like to reiterate that the requirements are for a person to notify the Commissioner after becoming a 5% controller of an APF employer and to seek the Minister's approval before becoming a 25%, 50% or indirect controller or ceasing to be a 50% or 75% controller.

Mr Desmond Choo cited the example of a company with a controlling stake in the parent company owning the APF employer. If such control involves the holding of equity interest or control of voting power in the APF employer, then, depending on the facts, this may fall under the definition of a 5%, 25%, 50% or 75% controller in clause 17.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas commented on clause 20 of the Bill, which makes it an offence for a person, who is not an employer of an authorised APF, to carry out any security activity in the course of any business. I would like to clarify that this is not new. Such a provision is currently covered under the existing section 86(9), but we have updated the penalties. I would also like to assure Mr Raj Joshua Thomas that SPF will continue to work closely with the APFs to prevent any infringement of the PFA and Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) in advertising their armed and unarmed services.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Bill is an important piece of legislation which allows the SPF to continue to keep Singapore safe and secure. That the vast majority of residents in Singapore feel assured that they can walk home safe at night is not a matter of chance or coincidence. It is a result of decades of effective policing, supported by robust laws.

I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill. Let us continue to keep Singapore safe and secure. Madam, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Tan].

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