Registration of Criminals (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.35 pm

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

Transnational organised crime and terrorism continue to pose a growing threat across the globe. According to international organisations, such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and INTERPOL, organised criminal networks are expanding and diversifying their activities. Recent terrorist incidents, such as the Paris attacks, have also shown how attackers have been able to plan attacks from abroad and cross borders to carry out their activities.

As a global financial and transport hub, Singapore is a potential target for organised crime and terrorist groups and a possible conduit for their activities. In order to tackle this trend more effectively, governments and law enforcement agencies around the world need to cooperate more closely and intensively.

The exchange of information is essential to our international cooperation, crime control and border security efforts. Having access to information, such as photographs, fingerprints and criminal records, aids our law enforcement agencies in their investigations.

For example, fingerprints lifted from a crime scene in Singapore can be compared against fingerprint records held by a foreign law enforcement agency to identify potential foreign suspects. Information on the criminal background of an individual also helps investigations, allows law enforcement agencies to identify recalcitrant offenders and facilitates the detection of suspicious persons at border checkpoints.

For our law enforcement agencies to ask for and receive such information from our foreign counterparts for the purpose of investigating transnational crime in Singapore, we must be able to reciprocate and share such information in return. This requirement for reciprocity is a long-established and internationally accepted principle.

Madam, we have made steady strides to enhance our ability to cooperate with our international partners.

For example, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) enables us to provide a range of assistance to other countries on criminal matters. This was amended in 2014 to simplify the conditions which must be satisfied before mutual legal assistance can be rendered and expand the range of offences in respect of which mutual legal assistance may be given or received under that Act.

Our law enforcement agencies also have long-standing arrangements to render assistance to their foreign counterparts at a Police-to-Police level for investigation purposes. This includes the regular exchange of information, such as criminal records and relevant identifying information, with other law enforcement agencies. This is a common and well-established practice among law enforcement agencies around the world. For instance, as a member of INTERPOL, Singapore exchanges information with INTERPOL member countries in accordance with established INTERPOL rules which serve to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the transmitted data. But, in the absence of express legislation, such sharing is heavily circumscribed. For instance, the information generally cannot be adduced as evidence in Court or used for any other purposes besides investigation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), therefore, proposes to amend the Registration of Criminals Act (RCA) to expressly allow a Singapore -designated authority to share such information with foreign law enforcement agencies, on a reciprocal basis, that is, the foreign agencies must be prepared to share similar information with our agencies on the same terms. The transmission of information will be subject to stringent safeguards.

This will also enable us to implement the Preventing and Combating Serious Crime Agreement with the United States of America (US) by allowing information-sharing between both governments for the prevention and combating of serious crimes, such as transnational organised crime and terrorism. The implementation of this agreement enables us to continue to participate in the US Visa-Waiver Programme, which allows Singaporeans to travel to the US for tourism or business without the need for a visa.

Mdm Speaker, let me now turn to the main provisions of this Bill.

First, the Bill introduces a new section 13I to allow a Singapore designated authority, namely, the Head of the Criminal Records Office, to share information about the individual that is kept on the criminal register with a foreign law enforcement agency, so long as stringent safeguards relating to the retention, use and destruction of the register information are secured through an undertaking given by the foreign law enforcement agency.

This is similar to the practices of foreign jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and New Zealand.

What can be shared? These would include information, such as the fingerprints and photographs of any person who is convicted of a crime by a Court in Singapore. Such a person's conviction in the register must also not have been spent or treated as spent under RCA.

What are the safeguards that will be put in place to prevent the wrongful disclosure and abuse of the information?

First, sharing will only be permitted for certain specified purposes. Under section 13I, register information will only be shared with a foreign law enforcement agency if the information is requested for the purpose of comparing information transmitted and identifying matches for investigation in certain matters or for proceedings in respect of those matters; or for deciding whether to make a request under MACMA or a requisition under the Extradition Act or for a purpose prescribed under RCA.

Second, the foreign law enforcement agency will need to give us an appropriate undertaking in relation to the retention, use and destruction of the register information in order to assure us that the confidentiality of information shared will be adequately protected. The foreign law enforcement agency must also comply with conditions prescribed for transmission of register information and any other conditions that the Singapore-designated authority may impose in relation to the transmission. For instance, if a foreign authority has breached certain conditions in the previous undertaking, Singapore may impose additional procedures to prevent similar occurrences.

Third, we will not share the information requested, if it is contrary to Singapore's public interest, or may prejudice any criminal investigation or criminal proceedings in a Singapore Court or the safety of any person in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, besides facilitating information sharing, the Bill will also strengthen operational procedures for the collection of particulars to be recorded in the Register of Criminals.

To aid investigations, RCA currently provides for the taking of registrable particulars, such as fingerprints and body samples of a person accused of a crime but only when he is under arrest. The period for which such a person may be detained in custody without a Magistrate's authority cannot exceed 48 hours.

The Bill amends sections 8 and 13B(1) to allow our law enforcement agencies to take the person's registrable particulars and body samples after the person has been released on bail or personal bond, whether by a Court or otherwise.

This is necessary because there are some situations where law enforcement agencies will not have the opportunity to take these fingerprints and samples within 48 hours after arrest. Such a scenario could arise during mass arrests or if an arrested person is warded in hospital for up to 48 hours or longer. Under section 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Police officers are not permitted to detain a person in custody who has been arrested without a warrant longer than 48 hours.

This also aligns the position in Singapore with that in foreign jurisdictions such as the UK, where the police may register a person while he is on bail if he has not had his fingerprints or samples taken in the course of investigations, or the fingerprints or samples taken are not suitable or of insufficient quality to allow matching comparison or analysis.

Mdm Speaker, with the increasingly transnational nature of crime and the growing number of terrorist attacks around the world, the need for enhanced international criminal cooperation is more critical than ever before. The enhanced RCA will allow the Police to better cooperate with the international community to prevent, detect and prosecute transnational crime. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

4.44 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I am generally supportive of the Bill. However, I wish to raise some concerns about clause 4 which relates to the furnishing of information on our Register of Criminals to foreign law enforcement agencies.

Madam, we can certainly agree about the importance of sharing of information with foreign law enforcement agencies to prevent and solve crimes, just as we would value their sharing of information with us. To this end, clause 4 enables a Singapore-designated authority to share with a foreign law enforcement agency information about an individual recorded on our Register of Criminals.

I have noted that clause 4 details safeguards that the Singapore -designated authority should adhere to before deciding to release any information to the foreign law enforcement agency. Such safeguards include requiring the foreign agency to give an undertaking in relation to the retention, use and destruction of the register information. The foreign agency must also undertake that information received from Singapore will be kept and maintained using such methods and technologies that will ensure that unauthorised persons cannot access the information and that the information will not be used for ulterior purposes.

It all sounds very good on paper. My question is: to what extent will we exercise due diligence to verify whether the foreign agency requesting the information is able to fulfil the conditions we have set, before we furnish the information requested?

According to the proposed section 13I(4)(6) of the Bill, the Government intends to be able to share information with potentially all countries in the world, since it defines "foreign law enforcement agency" very broadly. "Foreign law enforcement agency" is defined to include agencies in countries that are members of INTERPOL, as well as those that are not. INTERPOL itself consists of 190 member countries, practically all the nations on earth.

Madam, there is a vast disparity worldwide in the effectiveness of governments, the strength of a country's institutions and state agencies, and levels of corruption. How will the Government go about ascertaining whether a requesting country can fulfil the obligations we expect of them under the Bill?

Earlier, in the opening speech, the Senior Minister of State referred to INTERPOL rules, but my question is: how do we know whether these countries can actually fulfil these rules that they have signed up to? And will we take their word for it, or will more be done to ascertain for ourselves? Indeed, Madam, according to the proposed section 13I(3), the Government actually foresees that a receiving country may breach an undertaking given, and this is rather worrying.

Madam, on a related note, the international cooperation envisaged by this Bill will touch on our regional responsibility as a member state of ASEAN. In line with greater ASEAN integration, there have been discussions amongst ASEAN country Ministers about the need for cooperation to combat transnational crime. Transnational crime in ASEAN is understood to refer to drug trafficking, terrorism, economic crimes, human trafficking, money laundering, piracy, weapon smuggling and cybercrime and, since 2015, includes illicit trafficking of wildlife and timber, and people smuggling. Last year, Singapore signed up to the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Combating Transnational Crime, which calls for a new ASEAN Plan of Action to Combat Transnational Crime and greater information sharing.

With this backdrop, I would have presumed that if a request for register information came from an ASEAN country, it would be contrary to ASEAN integration to reject the request. Given the different stages of development among ASEAN countries and each country's institutions, what has been done or is being done to ensure that ASEAN countries can, indeed, share crime information with one another, with the confidence that the information will be safeguarded and not abused?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

4.49 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, now more than ever, there is a need for closer collaboration among law enforcement agencies, both regionally and globally, to deal with transnational crimes effectively. It is with these considerations in mind that I rise in support of this Bill.

Under the RCA, the Police are able to keep records in the Register of persons convicted of any crime specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Act. Particulars, such as the photograph, finger impressions and conviction records, are recorded. The Register of Criminals is useful in Police investigations, especially in the identification of suspects. By having access to fingerprints or DNA of persons that have been convicted of scheduled crimes, the Police may be able to expedite their investigations if they are able to find a match between evidence found as part of their investigations and those on the Register.

When RCA was last amended in 2005, it was amended to help former offenders to reintegrate into society by allowing those who have criminal records that have been "spent" to be deemed to have no record of that conviction if they are able to satisfy a five-year crime-free period. This was a timely and welcomed amendment. Likewise, the proposed amendments to RCA that are before the House this afternoon are timely and equally important. With the increasing links among countries, we are witnessing unprecedented levels of connectivity in our globalised world. As a result of this increased connectivity, we are also experiencing an increase in transnational crimes across borders.

Allow me to voice some advantages of this Bill. First, the proposed amendments will facilitate the sharing of information among our Home Team and foreign law enforcement agencies. This will enable us to deal with the scourge of transnational crime and terrorist groups more effectively and expeditiously. Through the proposed amendments in the Registration of Criminal (Amendment) Bill, information that is recorded in the Register of Criminals, such as fingerprints or photographs, can be shared with foreign law enforcement agencies for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crimes regionally, or possibly, globally.

And to prevent any abuse or the wrongful disclosure of the information shared, foreign law enforcement agencies will be required to undertake to protect the confidentiality of the information shared and to only use the information for crime prevention, criminal investigation or related proceedings. The Singapore-designated authority would even have the ability to suspend the transmission of information about an individual if that authority is of the opinion that the foreign law enforcement agency has failed to comply with the undertaking that it had given and does not take steps to rectify the non-compliance. So, there are safeguards, Madam.

Furthermore, our Home Team will also be able to request reciprocal assistance from law enforcement agencies when investigating and prosecuting criminals in Singapore, through a crime prevention exchange of information arrangement with other foreign law enforcement agencies. This will strengthen Singapore's ability to pursue criminals who operate beyond national boundaries. This is especially important in light of the establishment of the INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore in 2014. With the increasingly fast-paced criminal landscape, local and foreign enforcement agencies must ensure that there is a collaborative framework in place to facilitate the timely exchange of vital information and intelligence, so that we are able to deal with transnational crimes quickly and effectively.

Second, or second advantage, the proposed amendments will also strengthen operational procedures for the registration of criminals in Singapore. At present, the CRO only allows authorised officers to take finger impressions, photographs and body samples of persons who are arrested and are accused of a crime. However, authorised officers are not able to obtain these "registrable particulars" or body samples from individuals who have been released on bail or a personal bond but are still under investigation. This may hinder the conduct of a thorough investigation by the Police where a crime has been committed and the Police are conducting their investigations. It bears noting that there are already safeguards which may help ensure that these proposed augmented powers of the Police to obtain "registrable particulars" or body samples are not abused.

For instance, RCA already provides that in the event that finger impressions, photographs, registrable particulars and body samples are taken from a person during an investigation, but the person is acquitted or discharged without a conviction being recorded against him, the authorised officer in-charge of the case shall immediately inform the Registrar of the acquittal or discharge. The Registrar will then be required to destroy the finger impressions, photographs and registrable particulars that were obtained pursuant to RCA and to immediately remove the DNA information of that person from the DNA database. However, I have a series of questions here.

What if investigations cease before acquittal or before the case gets to Court? Or what if there is a long delay in investigations? Or if investigations are put on hold for an unduly long period of time? Should not the registrable particulars and the like be destroyed in these situations also?

In conclusion, the Bill reflects the new realities of transnational crimes and terrorist groups and the need for the timely exchange of information between Singapore and foreign law enforcement agencies. Ultimately, a collaborative approach to investigation and information sharing is essential if we want to be able to deal with transnational crimes quickly, decisively and effectively. However, Madam, it is equally important to emphasise that it is also incumbent on the Police and the authorities to ensure that such private information is not abused or illegitimately utilised. Madam, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

4.56 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Madam, I rise in support of the Bill. In today's porous, globally-connected world where terrorism has cast a growing shadow on lives worldwide, sharing criminal records across borders fulfils a basic security need.

Take the Paris terror attacks, which killed 130 people, as an example. The day after the gun and suicide-bomb attacks, one of the suspects who survived was stopped by the French police but was later released. Belgian police had, unfortunately, failed to share with their French counterparts about the information that this man was a known radical who had tried to travel to Syria to fight for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. The man is still on the run today.

Closer to home, in Indonesia, several militant groups have pledged allegiance to ISIS. In January, at least eight people were killed in an ISIS-perpetrated attack near a Jakarta shopping mall.

The Malaysian authorities have foiled several ISIS-inspired attack plots and arrested several persons involved in ISIS activities. Just last week, the Australian government indicated that terrorists may be planning attacks in Malaysia and Indonesia. In Singapore, the Internal Security Department recently arrested 27 male Bangladeshi nationals working in Singapore who were planning to take part in extremist activities in other countries, including Bangladesh, their home country.

So, given this scenario, the sharing of criminal records, fingerprints and photographs across borders will make it harder for terrorists and criminals to travel under false identities. Cross-border cooperation does not just address concerns over terrorism, but also online commercial crime, money laundering and other transnational crimes.

In Europe, the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) was set up in 2012 to allow courts and law enforcement agencies to obtain criminal records from other European Union (EU) member states. Since the introduction of ECRIS, 288,000 such requests are made every year across the EU. In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, it was announced in January 2016 that ECRIS will be further expanded to include the fingerprints of non-EU citizens.

Closer to home, also in response to the Paris terror attacks, Malaysia and the US governments signed an agreement in November 2015 to share a database containing the biometric records of about 1.2 million people suspected of terrorism and other serious crimes. The list of suspects will be used by security officials at all entry points in Malaysia as well as across the US.

Transnational cooperation is a step in the right direction towards the prevention of global crime. I understand that Singapore enjoys a close working relationship with INTERPOL, as said by the Senior Minister of State, and MHA has set up units to facilitate international exchange. For instance, the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) within the Commercial Affairs Department shares financial intelligence with foreign counterparts if they had signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs), while the Singapore Police Force's International Cooperation Department facilitates cooperation and information exchange with foreign counterparts.

Thus, I would like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State how the proposed amendment Bill ties in with Singapore's international working arrangements with INTERPOL, and various other platforms which already exist for information exchange on global crimes. How many countries have similar provisions that can share their criminal records with Singapore besides the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand mentioned by the Senior Minister of State earlier on? Does it mean that no other ASEAN countries have a similar provision to share the information with Singapore?

In addition, I would like to request the Senior Minister of State to elaborate more on the safeguards to prevent abuse and to protect the interests of Singaporeans under the amendment Bill. The last thing we want is for a Singaporean with decades-old criminal records of petty crimes to have his history made known to the immigration officer at an immigration checkpoint of a foreign country, thereby subjecting him to unnecessary body and bag checks.

Therefore, we would like to know when, what and how the criminal records would be shared with other countries. Firstly, when would Singapore share the criminal records with foreign countries? Will the exchange of criminal records be shared on a request-only basis? Secondly, what kind of criminal records will be shared with other countries?

Singapore, as mentioned, has focused very much on the rehabilitation and re-integration of offenders into the society. The Yellow Ribbon Project has made much progress in recent years. Therefore, I am very glad that the Senior Minister of State has confirmed that criminal records that had been rendered spent will be not be shared with other countries. But does it mean that all other records, beside those spent, in the Register of Criminals will be shared with other countries?

Thirdly, how will the criminal records be shared with other countries? Will it be via a shared platform like ECRIS? If this is so, we could have a problem of different countries tracking different things to different degrees and for different lengths of time.

For example, when the EU adopted ECRIS, it became apparent that Britain hangs on to the most minor convictions for years. As a result, local jobseekers could not apply for "sensitive" jobs like teachers and policemen while migrants from other EU countries go to England and apply for these jobs because their countries wiped the slate clean or did not keep records of low-level offences. Clearly, the "seriousness" and treatment of crimes are regarded differently across borders and this constitutes a problem.

How will foreign law enforcement agencies undertake to protect the confidentiality of information? How do we ensure that the information shared will not be abused for other purposes? What other safeguards are there?

Will Singaporeans be unfairly treated when they work and live in other countries that have access to our criminal records? The implications could be even more acute if Singaporeans are residing in countries with high 99% or higher conviction in the court.

In conclusion, Madam, I support the RCA Bill to share the criminal records with a foreign law enforcement agency. However, Singaporeans deserve to know in detail what, when and how information is shared with a foreign country to prevent abuse so as not to disadvantage Singaporeans unnecessarily.

Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.

5.04 pm

Mr Desmond Lee: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Ang Wei Neng for speaking on the Bill. All three have raised a couple of questions which I will seek to address.

First, Madam, Mr Ang asked how the RCA amendments would complement existing working arrangements that we currently have with other countries. Let me, first, set the context for how international co-operation in criminal matters is carried out.

Singapore relies on a combination of formal and informal co-operation channels to exchange information with foreign counterparts.

I had mentioned earlier the Act known as MACMA. This provides a formal channel through which law enforcement agencies render legal assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies with respect to any criminal matter. So, for instance, under MACMA, you can ask for the collection of evidence, search and seizure, freezing of accounts, arrangements for witnesses to be made available to give evidence and so on and so forth.

But beyond the MACMA framework for formal assistance, our law enforcement agencies can also render assistance informally either through INTERPOL, which most countries are members of, as Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out, or directly with our foreign counterparts through Police-to-Police contacts.

Currently, any request for register information has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis for public interest. The Bill clarifies that register information can be shared for specified purposes only and this will enable us to act more quickly and effectively. For instance, register information can be shared to help identify suspects in time-critical investigations. The Bill also expressly allows register information to be shared as a precursor to a request for more formal assistance under MACMA. In other words, the Bill, which amends RCA, will complement the MACMA process and strengthen our fight against transnational crime.

Members also asked about the mechanics of sharing register information with foreign counterparts, so, in a sense, it addresses partly what Mr Ang and Ms Sylvia Lim have asked.

Under the proposed amendments, a foreign law enforcement agency may request register information for certain purposes specified in the Act, which I have just mentioned earlier, one of which is to compare the register information with information held by the foreign law enforcement agency to identify suspects involved in the investigation of a matter.

Exchange of information can also be made to prevent crime. Depending on the arrangement between Singapore and the foreign law enforcement agency, the Singapore- designated authority, or the head of CRO, may be able to share register information pursuant to the arrangement even in the absence of a specific request for the transmission of that information.

A Singapore- designated authority may share such information to assist a foreign law enforcement agency in investigating or prosecuting foreign offences, particularly serious criminal or terrorist offences. Even then, register information will be shared on a limited basis and foreign agencies will, certainly, not get unfettered access to all our data.

With regard to the transmission of register information in relation to the investigation of a foreign offence or an investigation to prevent the commission of a foreign offence, I should highlight that the Bill provides a definition of what a foreign offence is. A foreign offence is defined to mean an offence against the law of the foreign country, which if the conduct constituting the foreign offence had occurred in Singapore, would amount to an offence against the law of Singapore punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months. And in this way, this ensures that information is not disclosed for non-serious or trivial matters.

I would also like to assure Mr Ang Wei Neng that the register information to be shared will not include spent criminal records.

I come now to the nub of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Ang's concerns, which are principally about safeguards to be imposed and the concern about whether our counterparts will adhere to the conditions that they have agreed to and the undertakings they have given and vice versa.

Before I go into the details, it is important to recognise the balance that we seek to strike here. On the one hand, we are certainly very concerned about the confidentiality of information, the identifiable information, names, photographs, fingerprints. But equally of concern is the need for law enforcement agencies around the world to get up to pace in terms of international cooperation. Crime knows no boundaries with the Internet, with travel being so easy and with borders being relatively porous. Transnational organised crime sometimes leads governments and foreign law enforcement agencies to scuttle around to try to nip the problem. So, cooperation is essential, otherwise, we fall behind the curve.

Mr Ang and Ms Sylvia Lim raised challenges and concerns regarding the sharing of information or data on certain shared platforms. Mr Ang mentioned ECRIS, and we are mindful of this and are careful to ensure that procedures and the infrastructure of all parties concerned protect the confidentiality of the information transmitted. We will certainly not deposit register information on such a shared platform.

We understand the privacy concerns associated with the sharing of information or data with foreign jurisdictions. We would like to assure Members of the House that the Bill will reduce the potential for misuse of information, and Singapore will not take any breach of confidentiality lightly. I earlier highlighted the key safeguards. Let me elaborate on the relevant provisions.

First, in order to allow the sharing of register information between Singapore and a foreign law enforcement agency, that agency must give us an appropriate undertaking to use the information disclosed only for a specified purpose listed under the Act. Requests that are made in a broad or tenuous manner, or by way of a "fishing expedition", will not be acceded to or entertained.

To be clear, we will not accede to any request for information to be disclosed for any purpose that is unrelated to the prevention and combating of crime and terrorism, such as, for employment screening purposes. Foreign law enforcement agencies should also never use our records for such irrelevant purposes. Should they do so or breach any of the terms of the undertaking, there will be consequences, as I will explain shortly.

Members asked whether a past criminal record of petty crime would expose a Singaporean to undue security checks at overseas border checkpoints. I believe Mr Ang Wei Neng did ask that at the end of his speech. The answer is no. A criminal record does not automatically result in enhanced checks at checkpoints. Every country, including us in Singapore, has its own entry requirements to prevent, deter and detect undesirable individuals entering their country. Singaporeans seeking to enter a foreign country must meet the country's entry requirements, which may include holding a valid passport or entry visa. Ultimately, a foreign country retains the right to impose conditions or refuse entry to migrants at the checkpoint.

Second, the foreign law enforcement agency is also required to undertake to protect the confidentiality of information by ensuring that the information is kept and maintained using methods and technologies that ensure that unauthorised persons cannot access the information. A Singapore- designated authority will be able to refuse further transmission of register information to a foreign agency if the Singapore- designated authority is of the opinion that the foreign law enforcement agency has breached such an undertaking and has not taken steps to rectify the non-compliance.

Third, the foreign law enforcement agency must be able to comply with conditions prescribed for the transmission of register information under the Act and any other conditions that the Singapore authority may impose, especially in relation to the transmission. This includes complying with any request by Singapore to delete or update the records if a criminal conviction has been rendered spent.

These safeguards will ensure that any exchange of information is limited to countries that ensure the confidentiality of information exchanged and prevent its unauthorised use.

In the course of her speech, Ms Sylvia Lim noted all these safeguards, but her concern was how we will ensure on a practical basis that these safeguards are met. She also mentioned that the membership of INTERPOL covers much of the globe and we are all party to this international co-operation arrangement for law enforcement.

While the Act does appear to allow us to share information with all these countries and more, the reality is that by striking that balance between the need for cooperation and privacy, Singapore will conduct its due diligence in working out arrangements, ensuring undertakings are made, given and also able to be abided by and audited. This is not something that can be done overnight. It involves agencies knowing one another, meeting one another, having lots of discussions about the safeguards that need to be put in place, the software, systems, audit mechanisms that need to be ensured, in order to ensure that level of trust to allow us to share information expeditiously. Because, sometimes, time is of the essence. Criminals will not wait for you. Sharing information quickly will help us to deter, prevent and, ultimately, solve crimes.

I believe Mr Christopher de Souza did ask a question about the taking of photographs and fingerprints of a person accused of crime. Under the current Act, it would be when a person is under arrest. Under this Bill, we seek to expand it to when a person is on bail or when the person is given a personal bond, and I believe Members who have spoken understand the necessity of having this mechanism. But Mr de Souza's concern is: what if a person's case has been put into abeyance for some time, or if the trial is particularly long or has been set for a date far into the future? Is it fair that the data is kept on the register?

If we look at section 4 of the Act, section 4 would not be touched. Section 4 states that the Register of Criminals is kept for persons who are convicted of crimes. While the fingerprints and photographs may have been taken at the point of arrest, they will not be recorded on the register. It will only be recorded when the case has been completed or if a person has been convicted.

If there is a subsequent acquittal, or if the conviction is rendered spent, the record will be deleted. So, I hope that this assures the Member that it will not unduly compromise the persons in Singapore whose trials may take a little longer.

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, the threats of transnational crime and terrorism will continue to grow. To be effective against such threats, we must have greater cooperation in the information exchange among law enforcement agencies. This Bill will improve Singapore's ability to cooperate with our international partners while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

5.16 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: I just have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State who mentioned in his round-up speech that each request will be assessed carefully and we may need to work with the foreign agency over a period of time to gain confidence in their capacity to fulfil the obligations.

I would like him to clarify whether this ongoing process applies also to our ASEAN counterparts or has that already been finalised and it is quite clear that we are confident that we can share information with our ASEAN counterparts without needing to go through this because it has been done earlier.

Mr Desmond Lee: Madam, this is an ongoing process. Our law enforcement agencies are frequently in touch with and cooperate with our ASEAN law enforcement partners. In every jurisdiction, there are a range of enforcement agencies and this is an on-going process.

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 Lee.]

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