Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.18 pm

The Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, this Bill makes miscellaneous amendments across 12 Acts. These amendments broadly fall within the following three buckets. First, making legislative provisions clearer; second, updating legislative provisions in light of revised terminology and definitions; and third, streamlining and improving operational effectiveness and delivery of our policies.

Let me now take hon Members through the amendments in this Bill.

First, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 92(4)(b) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2024 to update the term "interrogatories" to "discovery of facts". The amendment updates the terminology, in line with the Rules of Court 2021. It does not change the underlying substance of the provision.

Next, clause 3 makes minor and technical amendments to the Copyright Act 2021, or CA.

First, it makes typographical corrections to sections 61(1)(c) and 313 of the CA. Second, it splits the offence on causing protected performances to be seen or heard in public, under the current section 450(2) of the CA, into two separate offences: one, in relation to live performances and another in relation to recordings of performances. The split is necessary to restore the original intention with respect to the offence relating to recordings, which carries a different condition from the offence relating to live performances. These offences were inadvertently conflated when the CA was revised in 2021 in plain English.

I now come to the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, or CPC, under clause 4 of the Bill.

First, clause 4(a) and (b) update the definition of a "juvenile" in section 2(1) of the CPC to refer to a person who is 10 years of age or older, but below 18 years of age. This is to align with other related legislation, namely: section 25 of the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, which raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Penal Code 1871 from seven years of age, to 10 years of age; and section 2 of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 2019, which increased the maximum age of a "juvenile" under the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 from 16 years of age, to below 18 years of age.

Second, there are clarificatory and technical amendments to sections 319 and 360 of the CPC, which relate to fines and compensation. These amendments provide that a person, who is serving imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine or compensation sum, must be released "as soon as reasonably practicable" after the unpaid fine or compensation sum is paid. This is already the practice today and the proposed amendments make this clear in statute.

In addition, the proposed amendments make clear that fines must be paid using a designated mode of payment and within the time designated in a payment advice issued by the court to the offender, in line with existing practice.

Next, clause 5 of the Bill makes technical amendments to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, or IRDA.

First, it amends the definition of a "relevant company" in section 250(7) of the IRDA to delete a reference to a Registered Fund Management Company. This follows MAS' recent repeal of the regulatory regime for these companies on 1 August 2024.

The second amendment is to section 327(4)(a) of the IRDA, to extend the period within which a secured creditor has to notify the Official Assignee of the secured creditor's intention to claim interest on the secured debt, from 30 days after a bankruptcy order is made against the debtor to 60 days. This would give secured creditors more time to consider whether to and make a claim.

Finally, the proposed amendment to section 368(4) of the IRDA will make clear that the 14-day time limit mentioned in section 368(3) only applies to serving the Sheriff with notice of a bankruptcy application made against or by the debtor and not to the making of a bankruptcy order.

Turning to the next amendment, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 2(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965: to insert a definition for "His Majesty", "Her Majesty", "King", "Queen", "Sovereign", "His Britannic Majesty" and "Her Britannic Majesty", in relation to the United Kingdom, so that they can refer to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether that Sovereign is a King or a Queen.

Next, I will address the various amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995, or LAAA.

First, clause 7(b) introduces a new section 4A to provide protection from personal liability to individuals carrying out certain functions and duties under the LAAA. This is similar to the position in section 7 of the Public Defenders Act 2022.

Second, a new section 6A ensures that when a volunteer steps forward to help a mentally incapacitated person who qualifies for legal aid and does not have suitable family members to be appointed as that person's deputy, the volunteer will not be means-tested. The volunteer would not be paid for his work as a deputy for the mentally incapacitated person.

The volunteer here refers to a person who is registered as a professional deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 or a person who meets certain criteria to be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. These criteria would be similar to those required for registration as a professional deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2008. For example, the volunteer must be a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore, must not be a bankrupt and must be 21 years of age or older.

This section applies when a volunteer applies for legal aid for a proceeding to be appointed as deputy in relation to a person who lacks capacity, or to vary an order made in relation to such a person under the Mental Capacity Act 2008.

In such a situation, the means test would be applied on the person who lacks mental capacity, rather than the volunteer who is the applicant. With this amendment, the volunteer, who is stepping forward to help a mentally incapacitated person, would not need to incur costs to hire a private lawyer, if the mentally incapacitated person meets the means test criteria.

Third, the proposed amendment to section 16 of the LAAA will provide that costs owed by an aided person to the Director of Legal Aid, in connection with that aided person's application for legal aid, may be waived either partially or completely. This aims to provide a more equitable outcome for aided persons, in cases where the costs owed by them are equal to or greater than the settlement or judgment sums they may receive at the completion of their legally aided matters.

Finally, clause 8 effects an administrative move for the Legal Aid Bureau's financial requirements to be met directly through MinLaw's regular budget provision going forward. Hence, the clause provides for the transition from the current Legal Aid Fund, which will no longer be needed. The Government's commitment to the provision of civil legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau remains unchanged.

Next, I will move on to clause 9, which amends the Moneylenders Act 2008, or MLA.

First, it clarifies that all pawnbrokers regulated under the Pawnbrokers Act 2015, or PBA, are "excluded moneylenders" for the purposes of the MLA. As such pawnbrokers are already regulated under the PBA, this will ensure that these pawnbrokers are subject to only one regulatory framework.

In addition, it amends section 66(1) of the MLA such that a licensed moneylender must obtain from a body corporate loan applicant the same information as other loan applicants that are business entities. This will ensure consistency in the information collected by licensed moneylenders from all non-personal loan applicants.

Finally, proposed amendments to section 66A(2)(a) will require a licensed moneylender to inform each surety of the loan applicant in writing, when the surety's information is submitted to a designated credit bureau for the purpose of producing a credit report in relation to the surety. This amendment achieves parity in treatment between loan applicants and sureties, by notifying them when their information is submitted to a designated credit bureau.

I now come to clause 10, which makes technical amendments to the PBA.

First, it deals with whether fees are refundable. It introduces a new section 9A that deals specifically with fees for the grant or renewal of a pawnbroking licence. This provision prescribes when such fees are not refundable, as well as the Registrar of Pawnbrokers' discretion to deviate from this position. Clause 10 also clarifies that other types of fees for making various applications are not refundable. These amendments align the positions under the PBA with those under the MLA.

The second amendment is to section 2(1) of the PBA, to allow the use of an individual's foreign identification number, or "FIN", as an alternative to their foreign passport number, for identification purposes. As the FIN does not change over time, permitting pawnbrokers to collect the FIN as an alternative identification information will better meet their operational needs.

Third, proposed amendments to sections 10 and 13 of PBA will provide that the Registrar of Pawnbrokers may refuse to grant or renew a licence, or approve substantial shareholding, on the ground that a substantial shareholder of the applicant or licensee is not of good character or is not a fit and proper person. This is in line with our intent to prevent individuals with a wider range of criminal antecedents from being involved in the business of pawnbroking.

Fourth, proposed amendments to sections 38 and 39 of PBA will streamline the process for licensees to make representations and appeals, before the Registrar of Pawnbrokers takes action to vary their licence conditions, suspend or revoke their licence or impose a financial penalty. These amendments will provide clarity to pawnbrokers who wish to make representations or appeals before the above administrative sanctions are imposed.

Finally, there are proposed amendments to paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to clarify that pawnbrokers may charge fees lower than $2 for the issuance of a pawn ticket. It also clarifies that pawnbrokers may charge the fee only if they offer any mode of payment as specified. These amendments make clear that pawnbrokers have the discretion to offer customers more competitive fees for the issuance of pawn tickets.

Next, I come to amendments to the Public Defenders Act 2022. Clause 11 makes clarificatory amendments to the Public Defenders Act 2022, or PDA.

Currently, section 12 of PDA requires the merits of applications involving offences that carry a maximum prescribed sentence of more than seven years' imprisonment to be assessed by a board. This board consists of the Chief Public Defender and at least two solicitors appointed to the Public Defender's Office's panel of solicitors established under section 4 of PDA.

The proposed amendment to section 12(1) will clarify that such applications are determined by a majority of the board's members and this is consistent with our policy intent. Second, the Schedule under PBA on excluded offences and excluded classes of offences is reformatted for clarity and to improve readability. Clause 11 and clause 14 of this Bill contain proposed updates to include Regulatory offences under the Pawnbrokers Act 2015, the Bankruptcy Act (Chapter 20, 2009 Revised Edition) before its repeal, the Sale of Drugs Act 1914 as in force before its repeal, the Town Councils Act 1988; and to retain the existing reference to regulatory offences under the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1955. This is consistent with the policy intent to exclude regulatory offences from criminal defence aid coverage.

I now turn to clause 12, which amends the Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983, or RELA.

The last universal revision of Acts under RELA was completed on 31 December 2021 when the 2020 Revised Edition of Acts came into force. The Law Revision Commissioners (LRCs) will be revising subsidiary legislation to ensure coherence and consistency between subsidiary legislation and the revised Acts. For instance, when revising the Acts, certain provisions were renumbered and the language was modernised.

As at 26 June 2024, there are about 4,900 pieces of subsidiary legislation under around 349 Acts to be revised. This comes to almost 50,000 pages of subsidiary legislation. Given the sheer volume, the amendment in clause 12(e) is needed to allow subsidiary legislation to be revised in batches, rather than on a single date. This will allow batches of updated subsidiary legislation that are ready to be published earlier, compared to holding back until all the subsidiary legislation is ready at a later date.

The amendments by clauses 12(e) and 12(i) also give the LRCs discretion not to revise certain types of subsidiary legislation, for instance, subsidiary legislation that applies to certain time periods. Clause 12(l) also allows subsidiary legislation to be revised on an ad hoc basis, not necessarily every year.

Clause 12(h) allows a consolidated subsidiary legislation to be amended. Sometimes, when revising subsidiary legislation, the LRCs consolidate two or more pieces of subsidiary legislation. An example is the Infrastructure Protection (Protected Areas) Orders. When combined, a single subsidiary legislation will list the protected areas that were previously in separate subsidiary legislation. The amendment by clause 12(h) allows this consolidated subsidiary legislation to be amended to accommodate changes to the contents of the subsidiary legislation in the future. As a whole, the amendments in clause 12 help the LRCs' work in keeping our Statute Book coherent and comprehensible, furthering the rule of law.

Finally, Sir, I come to the amendment relating to the Women's Charter 1961.

Clause 13 amends the Women's Charter to make a minor drafting adjustment to the new section 126B, which was inserted by section 35 of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Act 2022 and is yet to be commenced. The amendment clarifies that the new measures to enhance the enforcement of child access orders apply to all access orders made under section 126 of the Women's Charter.

In conclusion, Sir, this Bill makes miscellaneous and minor amendments in the manner that I have just described. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.37 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have no objections to the Bill and wish to speak briefly on the issue of young offenders who are the subject of the amendment under clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 will amend the CPC concerning the age of criminal responsibility of young offenders. The definition of "juvenile" has been amended from referring to someone between the ages of seven and 16 to refer to a person who is between the ages of 10 and 18. This change is in line with the amendments that this House made five years ago to the Penal Code and the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which had hitherto defined "child" to be someone under 16 years old. This amendment to the CPC, when effective, will mean that youths between 16 and 17 will now be included in some of the CPC provisions meant to protect juveniles.

Some examples include the power of a sentencing judge not to impose the usual punishment for an offence but to make orders to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young offender under CYPA. Another example would be the opportunity for the young offender to be released on bail, even if charged with an offence attracting the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Sir, the general policy of recognising childhood as lasting till 18 years of age is well accepted internationally and, in Singapore, it has been a long time coming. Nearly 30 years ago in 1995, Singapore ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which defines "childhood" as that period of life of up to 18 years. The Convention recognises that a person's life till 18 years is: "a special protected time in which children must be allowed to grow, learn, play, develop and flourish with dignity". Children under 18 have yet to be fully developed and, when they do wrong, they should be guided rather than shamed and punished.

While the changes in the definitions regarding age are necessary, they will only be meaningful if the entire ecosystem of criminal justice adopts the same approach. To this end, there are significant measures already in place, such as prohibiting publishing the identifying particulars of crime victims or suspects under 18 years old.

Another area where progress has been made over the years is in the Appropriate Adult Scheme (AAS) where an appropriate adult accompanies a young offender during law enforcement investigations. Three years ago, during Parliamentary Questions, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) affirmed that the cut-off age for suspects under the AAS remained at 16 years. When I enquired then about whether the scheme would be extended to suspects below 18, MHA pointed to a manpower challenge. It was pointed out that the AAS relied on volunteers and if the scheme were to be expanded to youths above 16 but below 18, it was necessary to double the number of volunteers.

I am happy to note that the Ministry has since confirmed that the AAS would, indeed, be expanded to include 16- and 17-year-olds. It was announced that this would be done in phases from 1 April last year with the target completion date of October last year. It is commendable that the manpower challenge has been overcome.

Another important area is the Youth Courts, which are an integral part of the ecosystem for the support of our children. Compared to conventional Courts, the Youth Courts adopt more therapeutic practices, such as having closed-door hearings and a range of Court orders for the reintegration of young offenders. In 2019, Parliament passed amendments to the CYPA to raise the jurisdiction of the Youth Courts to hear cases involving youth offenders to include those aged 16 and 17.

However, it appears that five years on, the Youth Courts are still hearing cases involving youths aged up to 16 only. Could the Ministry of Law confirm when the Youth Courts will start hearing cases involving youth offenders between 16 and 18 years old?

Sir, over the years, I have witnessed young residents getting into trouble with the law. Some simply fell into bad company and succumbed to peer pressure, while others lacked proper adult guidance. After their first brush with the law, some are saved while others sink deeper into more offending, snuffing out the great potential their lives had. Not everyone has parents to advocate for them. It is thus vital that the agencies and the criminal justice system and we, in Parliament, do what we can to give these young citizens a leg up.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Murali.

3.41 pm

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim for her support of the Bill as well as her comments. On the specific question that she raised in relation to the CYPA of 2019, she asked whether the amendments to cater for the increase in the jurisdiction of the Youth Courts to hear cases involving youth offenders between 16 and below 18 will take effect.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has been working on this with the relevant agencies and will announce the operationalisation date of the relevant amendments from the CYPA of 2019 later this year. MSF needed time to build up its capacity and capabilities to manage not only a higher number of youth offenders, but also a new profile of older youths with differing needs and risks. MSF is committed to ensuring older youth offenders receive an age-appropriate rehabilitation catered to their risks and needs.

Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Ms Lim once again for her support of the Bill, which will make the legislative provisions clearer, update legislative provisions in light of the revised terminology and definitions and, finally, streamline and improve operational effectiveness and delivery of our policies. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarification time. Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.44 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Speaker, just a clarification on what the Minister of State just said. He mentioned that MSF would announce later this year when the provisions will be effective, and not that the provisions will be effective by this year, right? I mean, that is what I heard him to have said.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I confirm that the hon Member's understanding is correct.

3.45 pm

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? I do not see any.

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 Murali Pillai].

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