Registration of Births and Deaths Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.22 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Second Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Second Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Registration of Births and Deaths Act (RBDA) was enacted in 1937. It empowers the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to maintain a record of births and deaths in Singapore. This record is also important for policy-making and the provision of public services. It allows, for example, the Government to plan for the needs of our population in areas such as education and housing.

This Bill will repeal and re-enact the RBDA. The main objective is to streamline the birth, death and stillbirth reporting and registration processes. The Bill will introduce six key changes to the RBDA.

First, to mandate the reporting of every birth, death and stillbirth in Singapore as well as those on board an aircraft, vessel or train that is bound for Singapore.

Second, to streamline the birth registration process.

Third, to consolidate the registration of all births under the same legislation.

Fourth, to streamline the death registration process.

Fifth, to empower the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, or RG in short, to register births, deaths and stillbirths under special circumstances.

Sixth, to empower the RG and ICA officers to investigate and enforce against offences under the RBDA.

First, on reporting of birth, deaths and stillbirths. The current Act requires certain persons to register births, deaths and stillbirths but does not impose a mandatory reporting requirement. To be clear, reporting is different from registration. The reporting of a birth, death or stillbirth is an important first step. It alerts the relevant authorities to the occurrence of the event. After a birth, death or stillbirth is reported, the next step is registration. In the case of births, for example, the RG will register the birth after the parents or legally appointed persons have provided a name for the child and other birth particulars.

This Bill will impose a mandatory reporting requirement on persons defined in clauses 7, 22 and 32 for local births, deaths and stillbirths respectively. This includes a medical practitioner who attends to a birth in a hospital and, for deaths outside a hospital, an occupier of the premises who knows of the death. Failure to report, without a reasonable excuse, will result in a fine not exceeding $1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or both.

This does not include deaths reportable under the Coroners Act, such as unnatural deaths or deaths where the identity of the deceased is unknown. Such deaths will continue to be reported to the Police, as currently required under the Coroners Act.

The Bill expands the scope of the RBDA to include the reporting of births, deaths and stillbirths on board an aircraft, vessel or train – henceforth referred to as a conveyance – that is outside of but bound for Singapore.

Clause 10 of the Bill makes it mandatory for births on an inbound conveyance to be reported to the RG as soon as practicable after arrival in Singapore. Likewise, clauses 26 and 35 mandate that deaths and stillbirths on an inbound conveyance be reported to the Police as soon as practicable after arrival in Singapore.

Second, on streamlining the birth registration process. The current RBDA requires a parent of a child born in Singapore or any person who is present at the birth or in charge of the child to furnish the child's birth particulars to the RG within 14 days, so that the RG can register the birth. An application for registration made after 14 days but by 42 days after the child's birth is considered a delayed registration.

The concept of a delayed registration is no longer relevant in today's context and will be removed. The timeline of 42 days will provide sufficient time for the parents and legally appointed persons to provide the child's birth particulars, which include an appropriate name for the child.

An exception is made under clause 8 in the case of a child who dies within 42 days after birth. In such a case, the persons responsible for providing birth particulars are exempted from that requirement. Instead, the RG will register the birth on his own volition under clause 9 based on available particulars from the death reporting of the deceased child. This will relieve the grieving parents of the birth registration formalities during such a difficult time.

Third, on consolidating the registration of all births under the RBDA. Currently, the birth of an adopted child is registered or reregistered under the Adoption of Children Act while the birth of a child out of wedlock is legitimated and reregistered under the Legitimacy Act if the parents subsequently register their marriage. For a child to whom the Status of Children (Assisted Reproduction Technology) Act applies or who is legitimated under that Act, his or her birth is registered or re-registered in accordance with the current RBDA.

Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill will consolidate the registration of births currently in the Adoption of Children Act and the Legitimacy Act under the RBDA. This consolidation will impose the same registration requirements on all local births, such as the requirements and restrictions on the name of a child under clause 19. Clauses 16 to 18 will allow for births of children to whom the Status of Children (Assisted Reproduction Technology) Act applies, or who is legitimated under that Act to continue to be registered, or re-registered under the Bill.

Accordingly, the Adoption of Children Act, Legitimacy Act and Status of Children (Assisted Reproduction Technology) Act will be amended by clauses 64, 66 and 69 respectively.

Fourth, on streamlining the death registration process. Currently, two steps are needed to register a death in Singapore: (a) a medical practitioner certifies the death and issues an electronic Certificate of the Cause of Death (COD) Certificate. A printout of the certificate is then given to the deceased person’s relative; (b) the relative brings the COD Certificate to a registration centre, which are public hospitals, Neighbourhood Police Centres or Posts, or ICA, and applies for death registration.

Under the Bill, the second step will be removed. In other words, the relative will no longer need to provide the death particulars at a registration centre. As mentioned earlier, a death in Singapore, other than a reportable death under the Coroners Act, must be reported to a medical practitioner as soon as practicable. Upon receiving the report, the medical practitioner must examine the deceased person’s body as soon as practicable and ascertain relevant information regarding the circumstances of the death.

Thereafter, if the death is not a reportable death under the Coroners Act, the medical practitioner must, within 24 hours after examining the body, certify the death online by providing the cause of death and other death particulars to the RG under clause 23. The death will then be automatically registered by the RG under clause 24. Once the death is registered by the RG, the deceased person’s relative may download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website, a one-stop portal for post-death matters.

In the case of a reportable death under the Coroners Act, the deceased person’s relative also does not need to register the death. The RG will automatically register the death under clause 24 after receiving the Coroner’s certificate.

Fifth, on enhancing the powers of the RG to register births, deaths and stillbirths under special circumstances. I will cover the various special circumstances in turn.

Clause 9 empowers the RG to register a birth in Singapore on his own volition in the absence of complete birth particulars. This additional power is important for the welfare of children born in Singapore. It ensures that every child is given a legal identity and his or her presence is made known to other Government agencies, to allow for Government intervention or support if necessary. The RG will exercise this power if the responsible persons for a child fail to furnish the birth particulars for birth registration, and where attempts to contact the responsible persons are futile. In registering such a birth, the RG will give the child an appropriate name. Clause 20 provides that a responsible person may apply to the RG to change the name given by the RG within seven years after the child’s birth.

A second scenario is a local death where the deceased person’s body is destroyed, not recoverable or cannot be located. In these circumstances, currently, the deceased person’s family will need to wait for the issuance of a Coroner’s certificate before an application for death registration can be made.

Under clause 25 of the Bill, the RG may register such a death before a Coroner’s certificate is issued, if the RG is satisfied from the information and evidence provided as to the occurrence of the death in Singapore and the identity of the deceased person. This will allow the deceased person’s family to proceed with post-death matters in a more timely manner.

To determine that such a death has occurred in the absence of a body, the RG will rely on information and evidence from competent authorities, such as the Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, and any other relevant persons. If the RG is not satisfied that the death has occurred or cannot confirm the identity of the deceased person, he will not register the death. The deceased person’s family will then need to wait for the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquiry and the issuance of the Coroner’s certificate.

For clarity, this provision does not apply to missing persons. The next-of-kin of a missing person who wishes to have the missing person presumed by law to be dead will need to apply to the Court for the necessary order.

A third scenario is births, deaths and stillbirths on board a conveyance that is outside of, but bound for, Singapore. As mentioned earlier, clauses 10, 26 and 35 of the Bill impose a mandatory reporting requirement for such events. However, registration is not mandatory as the births, deaths and stillbirths did not happen in Singapore. The parents of a child or a stillborn child, and the relatives of a deceased person, can choose whether to register the event in Singapore, or only when they return to their home country.

Clauses 13, 27 and 36 will allow the RG to register such births, deaths and stillbirths, if the parents or relatives choose to and make an application to register the event in Singapore. This expanded scope of the RG’s powers will provide administrative ease in cases where a child, or a deceased person’s body, arrives in Singapore, and official documentation is needed by the receiving country to which the parents or relatives wish to bring the child or body. It also caters for instances where the home country of the child’s parents or the deceased person is not able to register the birth, death or stillbirth under its laws.

A fourth scenario is overseas deaths. Under clause 28, the RG may register the death of a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident, or PR, who dies overseas. This is provided that the deceased person’s body is brought back to Singapore and the death is not registered overseas. The relative of the deceased person must make an application within three months after the death and provide a medical document certifying the cause of death.

This expanded scope will cater to the registration of overseas deaths of Singaporeans and PRs that are not able to be registered overseas for some reason. This may include, for example, the temporary closure of government services overseas. The requirement for the body to be brought back to Singapore is to prevent fraudulent registration. Hence, this power does not extend to an overseas death where the body is not found. In such a case, the relative of the deceased person will need to apply to the Court for an order on the presumption of death, if the death is not registered with the foreign authorities.

Last but not least, the powers of the RG and ICA officers will be enhanced to facilitate investigation and enforcement against offences under the Bill.

Under clause 42, the RG will be empowered to obtain information required to perform his functions as well as ascertain whether a registrable event has occurred or whether a provision in the Act has been complied with. The RG will also be empowered under clause 44 to take possession of false or invalid documents produced in connection with the reporting and registration of births, deaths and stillbirths.

Under clauses 45 and 46, ICA officers who are appointed as authorised registration officers will be able to conduct searches and investigations.

The Bill also prescribes offences in clauses 48 to 53 in relation to: (a) the provision of false or misleading statement or information; (b) the unauthorised access to or interference with the registers; (c) the forging of or tampering with certificates or extracts; (d) the obstruction of the performance of functions or exercise of powers by the RG or an authorised registration officer; and (e) offences by corporations and unincorporated associations or partnerships.

In addition, the penalties under the Bill will be raised across the board to ensure deterrence, given that the penalties in the current Act have not been raised since 1937.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill provides for the streamlining of the reporting and registration processes for births, deaths and stillbirths, and expands the scope of the legislation to cater to a wider variety of scenarios. Let me summarise what the simplified processes will be for the large majority of the public.

First, for births. A woman gives birth to a child in a hospital. The attending medical practitioner files a Notification of Live Birth to report the birth to the RG; the parents do not need to do this. Anytime within 42 days after the birth, the parents must register the birth either online using the LifeSG mobile application or in person at ICA. Once this is done, the parents will receive a notification to download the digital birth certificate.

Second, for deaths. When a person passes away in a hospital, a medical practitioner will examine the body and certify the cause of death online. These death particulars are conveyed electronically to the RG, who will automatically register the death; the relatives no longer need to do this. The relatives may then download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website.

For deaths that occur at home, a relative who is present must report the death to a medical practitioner, who will conduct a home visit to examine the body and certify the cause of death online. The RG will automatically register the death upon receiving the death particulars electronically from the medical practitioner, and the relative may then download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website.

Third, for stillbirths. When a woman gives birth to a stillborn child in a hospital, a medical practitioner will examine the body and certify the cause of death online. The stillbirth particulars are then conveyed electronically to the RG, who will automatically register the stillbirth; the parents no longer need to do this. The parents may then download the digital stillbirth certificate from the My Legacy website.

These amendments, Madam, will significantly increase convenience for the public. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.44 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill will help streamline the reporting and registration of births and deaths in Singapore. This is important because the reporting and registration of births and deaths is not just a bureaucratic process of record-keeping. But the registration of a birth and death can have far-reaching legal and social implications for the individuals.

I have three points to make on the registration of births.

My first point is on births with insufficient particulars. Under the new section 9(2), the Registrar-General may register a child’s birth based on incomplete particulars if the birth is capable of being registered on the basis of the incomplete particulars. Under section 9(3), the Registrar-General may also register a birth without a name for the child.

In such cases, a responsible person for the child must apply to register a name of the child within seven years of the birth. However, seven years is a very long time for a child not to have a registered name. Will MHA consider shortening this timeframe?

The Registrar-General has broad powers to obtain information under the new section 42(1). While the Bill places obligations on responsible persons for the registration of births, can the Minister clarify whether the Registrar-General or ICA will take a proactive approach in following up with the responsible persons in such cases of incomplete particulars or missing names? Taking a proactive approach where the responsible persons are unable or unwilling to meet their obligations is important as proper registration may have implications on the child who does not have any power over the registration process.

My second point is on the support to children who are stateless by being born in Singapore to non-citizen parents who did not or could not obtain citizenship for their children from their home countries.

Minister Shanmugam shared in February this year that as of 30 November 2020, there were 1,109 stateless people living in Singapore. Of this number, about three-quarters are Singapore Permanent Residents, or PRs.

I understand that ICA evaluates every application for PR or citizenship on a range of criteria and the applicant's circumstances. Can the Minister share if ICA informs other Ministries, in particular, MSF, of children registered at birth as stateless to ensure that these children do not fall through the gaps in social and educational support?

I appreciate that citizenship has to be granted based on careful assessment of a range of factors. I also appreciate that some degree of social and educational support is already extended to stateless children with PR status. However, stateless children and their families have to jump through additional bureaucratic hoops in order to obtain social and educational support.

Even where citizenship cannot be immediately granted, can the ICA work together with other Ministries to make it easier for stateless children to obtain the necessary support, or even to proactively reach out to this group of who may be more vulnerable without the guarantees and protections of citizenship?

My third point is about children born to single unwed mothers. These are children who do not have a father named on their birth certificate or who have a father named on the birth certificate who is not married to the mother.

In November 2018, MSF shared that the median incomes of single unwed parents below 35 years old was in the range of $500 to $700 from the years of 2013 to 2017.

Can the Minister share whether ICA informs MSF when a birth is registered without a father or with a father who is not married to the mother, so that appropriate support, where needed, can be offered to these mothers right from the start?

For instance, ECDA works with the Social Service Offices, Family Service Centres and hospitals to reach out to pregnant mothers and families who can benefit from KidSTART. I understand from some single unwed mothers that social workers have approached mothers at the hospital to provide support.

Can the Minister share if there is a system of informing MSF of all children who are, again, born to single unwed mothers, whether in hospitals or otherwise, so that MSF can look into extending the necessary support to these families? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

6.49 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the new Registration of Births and Deaths Bill is an improved framework that overhauls and streamlines the registration of the two events that bookend every human life as it were: births and deaths. It provides clear rules on who holds the responsibility to report to the Government in the event of birth or death under a wide range of foreseeable scenarios. While I support the Bill, I have a few clarifications to seek.

Firstly, in respect of birth registrations, I would like to confirm that double-barrelled surnames are allowed and provided for under the Bill and its processes. In the current Registration of Births and Deaths Act, section 10 provides guidance on how a child's surname is given although there is no explicit reference to double-barrelled surnames. Currently, parents are able to register their child with a double-barrelled surname if they choose to do so. However, under the Bill, there is no longer any reference to surname. Could the Minister give us some guidance to the kinds of surnames that would be permissible for the child?

Secondly, I would like to speak on double-barrelled race designations. With inter-ethnic marriages going up from 18.4% of all marriages in 2009 to 22.9% in 2019, it is important for children of such unions to have the opportunity to grow up with an appreciation of their mixed parentage, if their parents choose to signify that by choosing double-barrelled race classifications for their children. As a parent of children of mixed ethnicity myself, I am particularly conscious of this.

In 2011, ICA implemented the registration of double-barrelled race options for Singaporean children born to parents of different ethnic groups. By this new option, if one parent is Chinese and the other is Indian, the child's race may be recorded as Chinese, or Indian, or Chinese-Indian, or Indian-Chinese, for example.

In this respect, I wonder if the Registry of Births and Deaths is able to provide some indication of trends, in similar fashion to what is reported on marriages, on the proportion of births to parents of different ethnicities. Amongst them, what is the proportion of children who have been assigned double-barrelled race by their parents? I note that in the first two months of 2011, the parents of one in five newborn babies of mixed parentage chose the double-barrelled race option based on data that the Government released back then.

I also wonder if the Ministry would consider streamlining the process by which parents of mixed ethnicity can apply to change the racial classification on their child's NRIC to a double-barrelled racial classification in cases where the child was registered at birth as bearing solely one ethnicity as they would have had to be prior to 2011.

Anecdotally, it would appear that both parents need to visit ICA for a physical interview in order to effect this change. Could the parents be enabled to provide their consent digitally or via a virtual meeting, for example?

Furthermore, the Chinese-Indian example given by ICA in their website falls within the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO) framework. Is it also possible to assign double-barrelled race classifications to a child in Singapore that is outside the CMIO framework, for example, Chinese-Burmese or Korean-Vietnamese? Like surnames, there appear to be no explicit rules in respect of designation of race of the child in the Bill.

Next, ICA states in their website that it currently includes the option for parents to include ethnic characters of the child's name in Chinese, Jawi or Tamil. Given the increasing ethnic diversity in our demographic make-up, will the ICA also be open to requests for other ethnic characters as well? Moreover, if the child is of mixed ethnicity, will they also be given the option to have their name spelled out in two sets of ethnic characters?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, from the subject of births, I shall now move to the subject of deaths, as, in reality, we all eventually do in life.

I understand that obtaining the death certificate is essential for identification and authentication purposes before some funeral services can be provided for the deceased. At present, the next-of-kin would have to express the preferred mode of disposal, cremation or burial when they register the death. The next-of-kin would then receive a permit to bury or cremate contained in the death certificate. Based on that, a funeral director would then be able to proceed to book slots for cremation or burial. A death certificate may also be required to engage your funeral director in order for services, such as the embalming of bodies and the use of funeral parlour compounds, to be performed.

Would the Bill possibly inadvertently bring about delays in the funeral arrangements in some cases, especially if the death occurs at home and the medical practitioner would need to return to his or her office to register the death electronically – and he or she could possibly be delayed in performing that action by the need to attend to other medical cases, for example? There is a 24-hour time restriction for medical practitioners to report a death but when making funeral arrangements, a matter of hours can cause inconvenience and emotional distress. I would like to ask the Ministry how this issue would be managed.

On a separate but not unrelated note, I would like to ask if funeral service providers were consulted in the course of formulating this Bill.

Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify how relatives, who are not digitally-savvy, would be able to receive the death certificate once it has issued.

Relatives need this death certificate in order to commence funeral preparations and in their state of grief, they may be anxious to obtain it as soon as possible. I understand that the new system allows for the process to be performed online and a digital notification will be sent to the relative to download the digital death certificate from the Government's online portal when it is ready.

However, there may be cases – admittedly, perhaps, not too many – when none of the relatives of the deceased who are planning the funeral are IT literate. Would provisions be made in such cases to enable the relatives to collect a physical copy of the death certificate at a location that is nearby? Alternatively, will the relatives be able to enlist the help of a funeral director, for example, to access the digital death certificate on their behalf if they give their consent?

In conclusion, under this Bill, I also note that there is no longer a need to surrender the deceased person's identification card for invalidation. However, the Bill highlights that the family should destroy the identification card to prevent abuse.

Based from feedback from the funeral service industry, funeral directors often come to possess the NRIC of the deceased person. Some funeral service providers may accumulate many such NRICs over time. This creates the potential for criminal use to be made of these cards if they fall into the wrong hands.

In view of this, will the Government consider requiring all funeral service providers and any unrelated persons in possession of physical NRICs of deceased persons to destroy those cards?

6.57 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Registration of Births and Deaths Bill. Simplifying the registration process and digitalising it will bring more convenience to our people. In order to become a Smart City, it is necessary to digitalise the births and deaths registration process. This will strengthen Government agencies' capability in identification and verification to provide better services for the people.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will still keep a hard copy of the registration records just in case, for example, the electronic system fails or if data is lost. The latest technologies, such as blockchain, can prevent theft and hacking, ensuring that electronic data be stored permanently and securely. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider adding an extra layer of protection to our registration records through different data retention methods.

I support the new regulation proposed by the Ministry to make it mandatory for persons responsible to report births and deaths to the authorities, doctors or the Police as soon as possible.

Being born in our country does not mean that the babies will automatically acquire citizenship. I would like to check if this policy will change and I would also like to ask the Minister how many foreign babies are born here each year and how many of them are granted citizenship. So far, how many newborns are not registered or abandoned by their parents each year? Does our country have institutions or facilities to accept abandoned babies?

Finally, I would like to ask the Ministry how many death registration applications are received each year to register the death of persons who are missing or whose whereabouts are unknown as a result of accidents or natural disasters.

6.59 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, coming on the heels of the recent publication of Census 2020, it is important for relevant Government agencies to be updated and have accurate records such as the registration of both births and deaths in Singapore. These records assist in ensuring that our population data is accurate and allows us to use this information to plan and enact policies to respond to the needs of our population.

That said, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister of State for Home Affairs on certain provisions of this Bill in four areas.

One, the present Bill seeks to streamline and digitise the death registration process. The new process requires a medical practitioner to certify and submit the death of a person online following which the death certificate is issued digitally. I also understand that the doctor or hospital can assist in printing the certificate for families who have difficulties accessing the digital certificates. Could the Minister of State clarify if this new process will result in increased fees compared to the current process since, for example, the doctor will now have to print the certificate or is it envisaged for it to be without charge?

Two, I also note that according to the Second Schedule in the current Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, there is a listing of fees such as persons are required to pay a $40 fee for certified extract of birth or death from the register in Forms L and M respectively. May I also clarify with the Minister of State if there will be similar fees if families at a later stage want to get a digital extract?

Third, the Bill also requires in some cases under clause 22(2)(d) the duty for reporting of a death to fall on persons that may not be at all related or associated to the deceased, therefore, there is this undue burden, failing which the person will be considered guilty of an offence and fined up to $1,500 and/or imprisonment of up to a month. The Minister of State had earlier mentioned about unnatural death briefly. So, for the clarity of the public, can the Minister of State clarify if, for example, a person on a morning jog finds a dead body and calls the Police, would the person still be liable to report the death to a medical practitioner under this section? Will alerting the death to the authorities suffice to discharge such a person from the duties the Bill now appears to place on that person?

And four, I have come across a resident whose parents passed away overseas and have not been able to get the death certificate even after he claimed the relevant agencies had assisted him to contact their counterparts in the foreign country. The body was not brought back to Singapore and he, therefore, is unable to bring closure to their estate matters after many years.

Can the Minister of State clarify if the process to prevent fraud for such cases has been streamlined and if the Registrar-General will have the discretion to register a death that has occurred outside Singapore? Mdm Deputy Speaker, in concluding, I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

7.03 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the amendments that come with this Bill. The Bill will not only streamline the process and help the registration of births and deaths through the use of digital platforms but, more importantly, it will also help reduce the possibility of errors and quicken the administrative process for registration of deaths within which grieving families have to go through to lay their loved ones to rest. Allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill will enable doctors to certify and manage the registration of deaths online without requiring the relative of the deceased person to register at the hospital, police station or ICA. This will help to simplify and expedite the funeral arrangements process.

The process of funeral arrangements and burial is an important one for Muslims. It is a collective religious obligation of Muslims and it is a priority for our community to complete this process without delay, so that the burial can take place as soon as practicable.

The Pusara Aman Mosque near the Pusara Aman Cemetery, which is also located within the Keat Hong ward in Chua Chu Kang, is one of several mosques that actively serve Muslims in our country by providing facilities for funeral arrangements before burial takes place at the Pusara Aman Cemetery. In fact, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the previous circuit breaker period, our mosques like the Pusara Aman Mosque are also busy serving those in our community whose family members have passed away.

During my visits, I was informed that the mosques also saw an increase in funeral arrangements done within the mosque compound as compared to last time. This is, perhaps, due to COVID-19 restrictions and also because new flats are less sizeable and have space limitations, making it difficult for the deceased person’s family to make funeral arrangements and perform funeral prayers in their own home. Therefore, mosques have been helping to make between eight and 10 funeral arrangements daily. With Singapore’s ageing population, this may increase in the future.

The implementation of digital technology put forth in this Bill will help to reduce the likelihood of mistakes in the death registration process that may be caused by human error.

Allow me to give one example. I was informed about a case last year that happened at the Pusara Aman Mosque. In the hustle and bustle of funeral arrangements, an error occurred in one of the death registrations, where the signature and reference number columns were not filled in by the agency and the family of the deceased person. Due to that, the burial could not proceed on the same day until the certificate was corrected. The Police and family of the deceased person eventually re-registered the death and obtained a new certificate. However, by the time the process was completed, it was too late in the day and the burial could only take place the next day.

Therefore, I welcome the provisions in this Bill that will help to expedite and facilitate the death registration process in Singapore. With this, I hope that it will also mitigate the risk of errors occurring during registration.

I also support the provisions that require all deaths in Singapore to be reported as soon as practicable.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

(In English): Notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I would like to seek some clarifications. On the registration of deaths, I have four clarifications.

Firstly, I share the same concerns raised by hon Member Mr Derrick Goh on costs. Would there be any safeguards against extra charges or costs to be borne since doctors are now not only certifying deaths, but they are also helping to submit the certification online?

Secondly, on categories of responsible persons to report the death under section 22, would the definition of an occupier also extend to persons who have the power or access to such premises, for example, landlords or warehouse owners?

Thirdly, in cases where there is more than one responsible person, section 22(4) discharges responsibility of every other responsible persons by the compliance of just one responsible person, even if there was an earlier opportunity to report by that other person. Would it be useful for ICA to still retain some powers to investigate non-reporting offences in cases where there are more than one responsible person who can report? For example, take the case if person A could have made the report earlier in time but deliberately did not do so and, subsequently, person B reported the death. By section 22(4), person A would have been absolved from liability, notwithstanding that his deliberate omission goes against the mandatory requirement of reporting "as soon as practicable after the death" and the intent of the Bill to promote expeditious reporting.

On the registration of births, I welcome the amendments to make it mandatory for all births to be reported. Currently, all hospital births, or children brought to the hospital within 24 hours of being born, are reported but it is not mandatory for births outside of hospitals to be reported to the authorities. Now, almost anyone, including parents or a proxy on behalf of the parents, can provide the child's birth particulars to ICA for registration within 42 days from the date of birth. I have two clarifications in this regard.

Firstly, I seek the same clarifications I sought before on the categories of responsible persons to report deaths here. Similarly, for the reporting of births.

Secondly, I have compared section 7(2)(e) on the reporting of births in any other places with section 22(2)(d) on reporting of deaths in any other places. For reporting of births in any other places, the responsibility falls squarely on the parents only. However, for reporting of deaths in any other places, the responsibility falls on, inter alia, every relative of the deceased person who knows of the death. What is MHA’s rationale for this distinction? Can MHA also consider placing the obligation of reporting of birth on a relative of the parents who knows or have knowledge of such birth? This will be useful in situations where the parents themselves breach such registration requirements and where the birth did not occur in the premises which are occupied by relatives.

My last clarification is a general one on ICA's own resourcing. Under the new rules, ICA officers would take over investigation of offences relating to the registration of births and deaths. Would ICA be forming a new department in this regard? If not, under which department would such investigations fall under?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it provides greater ease of death registrations and it is a step in the right direction to mandate registration of births.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.

7.15 pm

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and thoughtful feedback on this Bill.

To summarise, this Bill will bring about three key benefits: first, the Bill will provide greater convenience to Singaporeans through streamlined registration processes; second, the Bill will cater for an expanded scope of registration scenarios; third, the Bill will strengthen ICA's enforcement powers.

Please allow me to address the questions from the Members in turn. I thank Members for their support of the digitalisation of our registration regime. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim said that the new digitalised process would reduce errors. This will indeed be the case. This will also save time for members of the public and the public sector. We estimate that a total of about 18,000 hours per year can be saved by members of the public and the relevant Government agencies from not having to perform over-the-counter death registrations.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether we will still keep a hard copy of the registration records in case the electronic system fails and the data is lost. While ICA will not be keeping hard copy records for registrations done digitally, measures are taken to ensure that the data of the digital records are backed up at alternate secured sites and retrievable in the event of system failures.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Derrick Goh asked whether there will be any extra charges or costs to be borne. ICA will not be charging extra fees. The public hospitals have also committed to not charging extra fees for death registration under the streamlined process. While the Government is not able to dictate the fees charged by private hospitals and general practitioners who make house visits to certify deaths, we note that private hospitals and general practitioners will continue to use the same ICA e-service, which they are already using currently to certify deaths online. Hence, we do not expect the costs incurred by the private hospitals and general practitioners to increase.

Mr Derrick Goh asked if fees would be imposed for extracts from the registers, given that they will be issued digitally. To clarify, the digitalisation of documents will start with birth, death and stillbirth certificates that will be issued when the new Act comes into force. The issuance of digital extracts for births, deaths and stillbirths that are registered before the new Act comes into force will be introduced in a later phase. Regardless of the format of the extract, there is still a need to recover the costs for providing this service. ICA is reviewing the fee amount. If the costs have come down, the fees will be revised accordingly.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim raised questions regarding the categories of responsible persons and their duties to report births and deaths under the Bill.

Under clause 7, where a birth occurs in any premises other than in a hospital, the child's parents and the occupier of the premises who knows of the birth in the premises are responsible for the reporting of the birth. Under the Bill, an occupier for any premises includes a person who has control of, or is managing, the premises. For example, the management of a mall who knows of a birth in the mall, or the owner of an apartment who knows of a birth in the apartment, will be responsible for reporting the birth. In most cases, we would expect the parents to be responsible for reporting the birth.

Under clause 22, where a death occurs in any premises other than in a hospital, the relative of the deceased person who is present at the death, and the occupier of the premises who knows of the death in the premises, are responsible for reporting the death. In most cases, we would expect the relatives to be responsible for reporting the death.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim highlighted that for births that occur in a place other than hospitals, premises and conveyances, the responsibility falls squarely on the parents only. However, for the reporting of deaths in any other place, the responsibility falls on, inter alia, every relative of the deceased person who knows of the death. He asked for MHA's rationale for this difference. He also asked whether the relatives of a child should also be included as responsible persons who should report the child's birth under clause 7(2).

The situations surrounding births and deaths are different. For a newborn child, the parents are the responsible persons who will need to care for the child. Hence, they are legally required to report the birth. Under the current Act, ICA occasionally encounters birth registrations by persons other than the parents, such as a relative of the child. While ICA will continue to accept reports of births from relatives who are aware of the births, we do not want to burden the relatives with the legal obligation to report or be penalised for failing to report the birth. This responsibility falls on the child's parents.

For a deceased person passing away in any other place, the circumstances of death and the persons who may know of the death may be vastly different for each case. A deceased person could have died alone or in the company of a relative or a non-related person. Hence, the provision under clause 22(2)(d) provides for a wider scope of responsible persons than that for births under clause 7(2)(e).

As for the scenario mentioned by Mr Derrick Goh of a jogger who finds a dead body, the death will fall under the purview of the Coroners Act as a reportable death since it is likely that the death occurred under suspicious circumstances. For a reportable death, the jogger is obligated under section 5 of the Coroners Act to report it to a Police officer as soon as possible. As the death is not under the scope of clause 22 of the Bill, the jogger does not need to report the death to a medical practitioner.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked if it would be useful for ICA to still retain some powers to investigate non-reporting offences in cases where there are multiple responsible persons who can report. Under clause 22(4), as long as a responsible person reports a death, the duty of every other responsible person is discharged. This is because once a report has been made and a medical practitioner is alerted to the death, the purpose of the reporting requirement is met. However, if no responsible person reports the death, all responsible persons, who do not have a reasonable excuse, shall be guilty of the offence of failing to report the death. This provides sufficient deterrence against the failure to report a death while achieving the aim of ensuring that each death is reported by at least one responsible person.

To answer Mr Derrick Goh's query on overseas deaths, yes, the RG may register the overseas death of a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident under clause 28 if the death is not registered overseas. This is provided that the body of the deceased person is brought to Singapore and an application is made by a relative of the deceased person within three months of the death, accompanied by a document issued by a medical practitioner that certifies the cause of death and other death particulars of the deceased person.

Mr Gan asked about death registration for missing persons. In the past five years, the Police received an average of about 1,700 missing persons reports per year. The next-of-kin of a missing person who wishes to have the missing person presumed by law to be dead will need to apply to the Court for the necessary order. This process is governed by the Evidence Act and will remain so. Once the next-of-kin obtains the Court order, they can inform ICA to update the person's status in its system. This information will be shared with other agencies to facilitate other post-death matters. ICA will also issue a letter of acknowledgement to the next-of-kin when they report the presumption of death to ICA. In the past five years, ICA encountered an average of five reports per year in relation to such Court orders.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about newborn children whose births are not registered by the child's parents or who have been abandoned by their parents. In 2020, 72 births were not registered within 42 days. This makes up less than 0.2% of total births in Singapore. Out of these 72 births, most parents do come forward to register the births after reminders from ICA. Due to ICA's efforts to trace the parents, the number of cases of parents who fail to register their child's birth is very low. Nevertheless, the Bill will provide powers for the RG to register such births on his own volition when the parents fail to do so despite ICA's efforts to contact and remind them.

As for abandoned babies, such cases are relatively rare in Singapore. MSF's Child Protection Service will initially place the abandoned baby under its foster care service. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the child may subsequently be returned to the parents or be put up for adoption.

Mr Louis Ng asked how ICA will follow up with the responsible persons for a child in cases with incomplete birth particulars. ICA will do its part to contact and remind the responsible persons. But, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the responsible persons, such as parents, to register their child.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the naming of a child whose birth is registered by the RG on his own volition. The RG will give the child an identifier which will be a single-worded name. The responsible persons for the child can subsequently apply to the RG to replace the identifier with another name within seven years of the child's birth. The responsible persons can, of course, do so much earlier.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether birth registration and citizenship will continue to be independent of each other. The answer is yes. All births in Singapore have to be reported and registered, regardless of the nationalities of the child's parents. However, the policy remains that a birth that is registered in Singapore does not automatically confer Singapore Citizenship on the child. In the past three years, about 17% of total births in Singapore are those of children born to parents who are both foreigners and, therefore, do not qualify for Singapore Citizenship by birth. There is also a small number of children born to at least one Singaporean parent but are not granted Singapore Citizenship for reasons such as the parents not being legally married at the time of the child's birth. In 2020, such births make up less than 0.15% of total births in Singapore.

Mr Louis Ng asked about children who are stateless. To clarify, children are only classified as stateless when their parents fail to obtain citizenship – Singapore or otherwise – for the child after the child's birth. A child is not classified as stateless at the time of the birth, nor at the point of the birth registration. It is the responsibility of the parents to obtain the appropriate citizenship for their child. ICA does not keep track of the citizenship status of non-citizen children.

Mr Louis Ng asked about children born to single unwed mothers. Due to privacy reasons, ICA does not specifically share information of such births with MSF.

Sir, let me address some of the questions asked by the hon Member Mr Leon Perera. He raised a few issues. One is about surnames. For surnames, we can have double-barrelled surnames of different races. On what kinds of surnames are not allowed, we follow the same guidelines as for names. So, as long as names are not offensive like "Stupid" or "Satan", then it will be alright. We are very mindful of that because we want to protect the dignity of the child.

For double-barrelled race, parents are allowed to register as long as they have different registered races; they do not need to be across the CMIO categories. This change can be done online for those that were previously registered with a single-barrelled race.

On the suggestion on having more ethnic characters or multiple types of ethnic characters, it is something that we can look into. However, as you know, there are some constraints that we have to take into consideration like space availability on the NRIC and the birth certificate.

The Member also asked about whether we have engaged the undertakers. Essentially, we have been working very closely with the stakeholders. It is not only about engaging them, we receive feedback from the different stakeholders at different points in time, including from the public. So, we will continue to engage them even after the Bill is passed. Essentially, it is a continuous engagement and we are mindful that this is about birth and death, which are very sensitive. We want to give as much convenience as possible to the families. We often receive feedback from the public and the undertakers. We will continue to engage all these stakeholders.

The Member raised issues relating to potential delays by medical practitioners certifying death at home under the new death registration process. Essentially, the medical practitioner will be using the same online system as today. So, there is no change. We have not heard much of an issue about delay, so we feel that it will be business as usual. Nevertheless, we will continue to keep a look-out to see if there is any delay.

The Member also raised issues relating to the abuse of NRICs of the deceased. For now, we do not see that as a big issue. We will monitor. In fact, we have high penalties for this, and I think that in itself is a deterrent for people who want to use this. Under the National Registration Act, anyone abusing NRICs is liable for a fine up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to 10 years or both.

The Member also asked for data and trends of mixed parentage. I do not have the data on hand now. The Member may want to submit a Parliamentary Question.

The Member also asked about those who are non-digitally savvy. The relatives of the deceased may request the hospital or medical practitioner to help to print out a copy of the digital death certificate. Nevertheless, we will take note of this feedback.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure that everyone enjoys convenience as a result of this. In fact, when the Bill was first read, I received a lot of positive feedback from some of the stakeholders who are very involved in such an area. They shared with me that it is very much welcomed, especially for the death registration, as they find that it is something that will make it easier and will enhance the process of preparing for the post-death matters. We want to make it convenient for them. Birth is a celebration, and now, like what the Member shared earlier, it is about having all the different parentage, and I think it is about how we can continue to make ourselves relevant. We will continue this process.

I also want to cover an area raised by Mr Zhulkarnain. He asked whether ICA will be forming a new department to undertake the enforcement of the Bill. Investigation officers from ICA's existing Enforcement Division, which currently already investigates offences under Acts such as the Passports Act and National Registration Act, will be appointed as authorised registration officers to conduct searches and investigations into suspected offences under part 8 of the Bill. Therefore, ICA will not need to form a new department. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill will streamline and digitalise the birth, death and stillbirth reporting and registration processes. This will provide significantly greater convenience for the public, in particular, for deaths, when a person passes away, a medical practitioner will examine the body and certify the cause of death online. The death particulars are sent electronically to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, who will automatically register the death. The relatives of the deceased person no longer need to register the death at the hospital, a Neighbourhood Police Centre or Post, or ICA. The relative may then download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website.

Members asked whether there will be any extra charges or costs to be borne under the streamlined death registration process. ICA will not be charging extra fees. The public hospitals have also committed to not charging extra fees for death registration under the streamlined process. While the Government is not able to dictate the fees charged by private hospitals and general practitioners who make house visits to certify deaths, we note that private hospitals and general practitioners will continue to use the same ICA e-service which they currently already use to certify deaths online. Hence, we do not expect the costs incurred by private hospitals and general practitioners to increase.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I am confident that this Bill will provide greater convenience for Singaporeans when dealing with births, deaths and stillbirths. With that, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? Okay.

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. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim].

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