Committee of Supply – Head P (Ministry of Home Affairs)

The Chairman: Head P, Ministry of Home Affairs. Mr Murali Pillai.

2.15 pm

White Collar Crime and Death Penalty

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

The Singapore Home Team enjoys high levels of trust and confidence amongst Singaporeans. Why is this so? Principally, it is because our Home Team continues to deliver on the promise to make Singapore safe and secure.

This is achieved despite significant operational challenges. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that our Home Team is provided with sufficient resources and legislative levers so that they will be in a good position to deliver on their mission.

In my speech, I will focus on two areas: first, providing better support to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), our premier white-collar crime buster, in the fight against complex white-collar crime; and second, reviewing the effect of the death penalty as a deterrent against drug trafficking, murder and other serious crimes.

Turning to the first topic, we have seen a significant increase in complex white-collar crime cases in Singapore which are being investigated by the CAD. Several examples, some of which I have gleaned from the CAD's Annual Report 2020/21, include the fraudulent billion-dollar investment scheme by nickel trading companies; trade financing fraud involving several oil trading companies that has left banks with a combined exposure reported to be about US$3.5 billion; and numerous cases of misconduct in the stock markets. Some of these cases have been unearthed because of the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, if not for the pandemic, the fraudulent conduct could have carried on without detection.

Needless to say, such cases affect the reputation of Singapore and her financial system. These perpetrators must be dealt with firmly by the law.

But one thing astonishes me – what makes these people think that they can get away with their offending conduct in Singapore? The scale and nature of these crimes show that this is daylight robbery, not a thief in the night. Everyone knows we have tough laws. People convicted of serious white-collar crimes are imposed deterrent sentences. But why do these crimes worth several billion dollars still happen with some regularity on our shores?

It seems to me that one issue we have not yet nailed is detection. A good number of these fraudsters think that their acts will not be detected. Is there any basis for this sort of thinking? If there is, we better make sure that we address this expeditiously.

We need a framework that will enable white-collar crimes to be detected as early as possible. These persons must get the message that if they do the crime, they will be detected and will have to pay a high price. How can we do this? I note that there are already established strategies, such as leveraging data analytics, to process suspicious transaction reports, cash movement reports, cash transaction reports by institutions and individuals in Singapore, as well as deepening of intelligence capability through partnerships. I support these strategies.

One suggestion I wish to make is to have a whistle-blowing legislation that not only protects whistle-blowers from recrimination but also incentivises them should the information they provide lead to successful prosecution and recovery of ill-gotten assets. This is not a new idea. Other financial centres, such as the US and UK, have such legislation. I have made the same suggestion in the past.

The reality is that the white-collar crime criminals obviously commit their acts in secrecy. What we see in the open is not robbery but a legitimate front. The real underbelly can only be exposed through insiders. Insiders are not likely to volunteer information unless their interests are protected. I know this is a separate matter from providing incentives but, in a risk-benefit calculus, the benefit may not be just mere protection. We are incentivised by way of rewards, too.

Another suggestion I have is to review the role of external auditors in order that they are in a better position to detect fraud in companies and report the matter to CAD. Hon Members may be familiar with the German Parliament’s investigation into the shortcomings of the Wirecard’s auditors. By the way, the CAD has investigated Wirecard, too, which involves alleged losses of more than €1 billion and prosecution in Singapore is currently afoot. The report concluded that the auditor did not maintain sufficient professional scepticism and this led to it accepting documents and instructions without sufficient scrutiny. There must be better alignment between the auditor’s role currently and the investing public’s expectations.

Next, we need to decisively tackle the problem of resourcing. I suggest we beef up manpower internally and be more open to engaging other experts from the outside. CAD is operating in a challenging environment on a day-to-day basis. Despite that, it is doing a very good job in bringing offenders of complex white-collar crimes to book. As legislators, we need to ensure that CAD is sufficiently resourced so that investigations into complex white-collar crime are conducted fully and with due dispatch. The faster the culprits are prosecuted, the stronger the message of deterrence will be against like-minded offenders in the future.

CAD faces a manpower constraint. After all, its officers continue to be highly sought after in the private sector. We must acknowledge this and pay our CAOs as close as possible to their market value. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure adequate resourcing to deal with criminality. I have heard laments about problems in recruiting people as IOs. With respect, this is not an answer I accept. The Government must try harder.

I now move on to the second point of my speech, which deals with the death penalty. The Government's position was spelt out by the hon Minister on 5 October 2020. He said that in determining whether to apply the death penalty to a particular offence, the Government takes into account three considerations in totality: seriousness of the offence; how widespread the offence is; and the need for deterrence. Applying these considerations, the main offences for which the mandatory death penalty is imposed are intentional murder, gang robbery with murder, trafficking of significant quantities of drugs, terrorist bombing and use of firearms. The Government’s approach has resulted in Singapore being one of the safest places in the world – something that is deeply valued by Singaporeans.

Two significant changes to the law had happened since 2013. Drug couriers convicted of capital drug trafficking offences who have been issued with certificates of substantial assistance to curtail drug trafficking activities or found to be suffering from abnormality of mind would be imposed with life sentences instead of the mandatory death penalty. In addition, the death penalty would only be imposed as a mandatory sentence for intentional murder. For the other forms of murder, the Court has a discretion to impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The Minister had revealed earlier last month that for the period between 1 January 2013 and 11 February 2022, out of 104 accused persons who were found to be couriers and convicted as drug traffickers, 82 of them received certificates of substantial assistance and they were imposed with life imprisonment terms. Of the remaining 22, eight persons were imposed with life imprisonment on the basis that they were suffering from an abnormality of mind. The Court imposed the death penalty on 14 persons. In other words, 13% were found to be couriers and convicted of capital drug trafficking charges were imposed with mandatory death penalties.

The impact of the law is clear. The number of persons subjected to the mandatory death sentence has been reduced significantly. Nonetheless, there could be a watering down of the deterrent effect of the death penalty for drug trafficking. I, therefore, ask whether there has been any deterioration on the part of the Home Team’s ability to keep our drug situation under check. If there is no deterioration, may I ask whether the Government is prepared to consider extending the issuance of certificates of substantial assistance to cover cases where drug couriers whose death penalties have been affirmed on appeal?

Most essentially, Singaporeans must continue to be convinced that the retention of the death penalty is essential for the Home Team to do its job. The fact that most Singaporeans agreed in the past does not mean that their views may not change. Outside Singapore, more and more jurisdictions have abolished the death penalty. Singaporeans’ opinions can be shaped by these developments.

May I ask what efforts have been made by the Government to continually make the case for the continued use of the death penalty in Singapore? Has there been any recent survey to measure Singaporean support?

Madam, the Home Team’s mission is one that needs constant vigilance, not only in terms of policy implementation, but in its alignment with changing social norms and mores.

Our officers already enjoy the trust of Singaporeans from arresting the trend of increasing white-collar crime to deterring serious crimes, such as drug trafficking. Our officers must be well-resourced, supported and adequately compensated so as to ensure that we continue to attract the best and the brightest to take on the heavy task of keeping us safe.

Question proposed.

Death Penalty

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Chairperson, the death penalty has been a part of Singapore’s criminal justice system from colonial times. Capital punishment is not new or unique. It has been a part of criminal justice systems for thousands of years and references to it can be found in the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon more than 3,000 years ago. It is usually reserved for the most serious of offences.

Over the last 50 to 60 years though, a number of countries, including most of Europe, have abolished the death penalty. There are various groups lobbying for its abolition in many parts of the world, including in Singapore. This is usually based on humanitarian grounds because, despite the seriousness of the crime involved, when one looks at the world from the perspective of the offender, there is usually a sad story involved as well.

In Singapore, the death penalty is used only for a very small number of offences, including for murder, kidnapping, illegal use of firearms and drugs. Of these, the largest number of death sentences are meted out for drug trafficking. Singapore has done well in keeping these serious crimes under control. Our rates of murder, kidnapping and firearm use are extremely low, with the latter two offences being very rare.

While drug-related offences are more widespread, in relative terms, compared to other countries, Singapore’s rate of drug addiction and drug-related crimes is amongst the lowest in the world. That drug trafficking is more rampant than the other serious crimes is not surprising because there are well-financed organised syndicates running this business.

I would like to ask MHA to what extent it believes the death penalty is important in deterring serious crimes and what role it plays in keeping Singapore’s rates of serious crimes low. How does Singapore compare with countries that do not impose the death penalty in relation to these serious crimes?

The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera. You can take your two cuts together.

Foreign Interference

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Chairperson. My first cut, on foreign interference.

Chairman, in some of our laws, the Government has sweeping powers over many activities. In the Home Affairs Minister’s FICA round-up speech, he said if the CPIB hypothetically “wants to investigate the Prime Minister, there is a higher authority they report to."

I would like to return to one question I raised during that debate, which is, who checks the checkers, and specifically in relation to foreign interference. The world is changing and geopolitical tensions are ratcheting up to levels that have not been seen in recent memory. Ministers, including the Home Affairs Minister and Prime Minister himself, would be extremely high-value targets for foreign interference, particularly given what some might say is Singapore’s significant role in ASEAN.

I would like to ask MHA what is the nature of the institutional check on senior Ministers in respect of foreign interference. Does it reside with the CPIB, which is what the Home Affairs Minister’s reply suggested? If so, does the CPIB proactively assess risks of foreign interference against Ministers or does it act only reactively, if complaints are lodged? Are there officers in the CPIB with the necessary skills and expertise to investigate possible foreign interference?

I would like to reiterate calls for an Ombudsman to provide independent oversight, similar to that in countries like New Zealand. The office of an Ombudsman would create investigative resources behind a legitimate institutional check that would be seen to be legitimate. In the current climate, there is more of a need for this.

Extra-judicial Caning

Second cut on extra-judicial caning in prisons.

Mdm Chairperson, I recently filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the use of extra-judicial caning to punish aggravated or major prison offences. While I accept that there is a need for in-prison disincentives against dangerous behaviours, in my opinion, there is too little independent oversight in this process.

The Institutional Discipline Advisory Committee reviews the recommended strokes. The Commissioner also reviews the findings and has the authority to vary punishments. However, the process starts and ends within the Singapore Prison Service, which investigates, presses charges and recommends punishment. Can reform with a judicial element be studied, so we have a greater oversight mechanism? This is important in respect of caning, which is a harsh punishment.

On caning, lastly, according to one published account, there is a practice that sometimes happens of requiring inmates to "thank" the prison staff after being caned. I am not alleging that this is the case. But I would like to ask the Government if this is a current practice and, if so, would the Government consider stopping it, as it is unnecessary and seems of questionable rehabilitative value, to put it mildly.

Reforming Offenders, Lowering Recidivism

Mr Murali Pillai: Madam, a nation’s prisons are strong signals about what kinds of behaviours it feels are criminal and have harmed societies in the strongest terms. But they are also centres of hope and second chances. Over several decades, our officers of the Singapore Prison Service, known as Captains of Lives, had been working assiduously to turn our prisons into rehabilitation centres for inmates – to reform and reintegrate into society.

This House has heard about the good work that the Singapore Prison Service, Yellow Ribbon Singapore and their partners do in rehabilitating prisoners in January 2022 when the hon Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim, moved amendments to the Prisons Act. As hon Members may recall, the amendments introduced the Employment Preparation Scheme. Under this scheme, inmates were allowed an opportunity to undergo skills training in the community so that they will be able to get good jobs upon their release.

In his speech, the hon Minister of State recounted the important steps taken by the Singapore Prison Service over almost four decades to help inmates in their journey of rehabilitation and reintegration.

2.30 pm

Currently, the number of inmates participating in community-based programmes to help their rehabilitation has increased by more than 40%. This translates into almost 3,500 inmates. An impressive 90% of these inmates successfully complete the programmes too.

I believe that all these efforts have been instrumental in SPS achieving a commendable all-time two-year low recividism rate of 20% for inmates released in 2018. The five-year recividism rate remains stable. These rates are among the lowest in the world, with only a few countries such as Norway, doing better than Singapore.

The question arises as to what more should be done to help our inmates reform and lower recidivism even further. One in five slipping back into a life of crime is still one too many.

Over time, our prison population is gradually reducing. This is a good sign. From my own calculations, I worked out the Singapore prison population rate as at 2020, to be 163 per 100,000. This compares with 212 per 100,000 across the Causeway in Malaysia.

However, there are states with lower figures than ours. I cite three: Hong Kong's rate is 96 per 100,000; South Korea's is 105 per 100,000; and England's rate is 132 per 100,000.

To be fair, when I looked at our prison population figures, I noted that the main driver is actually those who have committed drug offences. Almost 70% of our penal inmate population consists of drug offenders.

We have an uncompromising stance on drugs that allowed us to have one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world – about 30 opiate abusers per 100,000, compared to 600 per 100,000 in the US. Although this tough stance means that more people will be jailed or detained in drug rehabilitation centres (DRCs), I support this as our way of dealing with this scourge.

It seems to me, therefore, to lower recidivism in a more decisive way, we will have to focus even more on the rehabilitation and aftercare programmes for these drug offenders. This is, obviously, not easy, but we are fortunate that, in Singapore, SPS, CNB and its partners have been doing excellent work on this front for a long time.

One suggestion I have is to carefully monitor the company that drug offenders keep during the time that they are subject to drug supervision orders. I came across a case of an ex-inmate who, when reporting for urine test, reconnected with old friends who were also reporting for urine tests and thereafter, started committing crime together.

It sounds perhaps too much like a surveillance state to require that we keep tabs on who such supervisees meet or constrain them from mixing around with more hardened offenders. I have in mind something more like using the good to crowd out the bad. Occupy their time and energies with new and interesting options.

Motivating inmates, providing them with the structural and emotional support to reform from within themselves, giving them opportunities to learn new skills and acquire knowledge, emplacing them in decent jobs and helping them reintegrate into their families and societies are important steps to lower recividism amongst our inmates.

I look forward to hearing from the hon Minister on his plans to further cut the recividism rate and reduce our prison population.

A Holistic Criminal Justice System

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Madam, it has been mentioned very often in this House and it is true that our justice system and law enforcement agencies enjoy a high level of public confidence. In fact, the Institute of Policy Studies' 2020 instalment of the World Values Survey found that our Courts and the Singapore Police Force enjoyed admirably higher levels of confidence, compared to our Government and Parliament.

On a related note, the low level of crime in Singapore is a key indicator of the success that law enforcement has achieved. I will be speaking on the role of the community in building a holistic criminal justice system.

Madam, our recidivism rates, as mentioned by Mr Murali before this, are amongst the lowest in the world. The two-year rate for the 2019 release cohort is 20%.

However, as has been pointed out in this House before, the five-year recidivism rate is double that. This warrants some pondering as to why the rate of reoffending goes up steeply after the first two years of being released.

I know that, as had been debated in Parliament last year when the Singapore Prisons Act was amended, there are significant Government programmes for ex-offenders immediately before and immediately after release. These include the Employment Preparation Scheme and a community-based programme.

Most of these appear to taper off at around the two-year point, including the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. I will, therefore, venture to deduce that the reason or at least one of the reasons, why the recidivism rate goes up after the two-year mark is precisely because Government programmes are tapering off.

In this regard, in order for us to keep the likelihood of reoffending low, we need to make sure that the community plays its part in conjunction with Government programmes and importantly, after Government programmes have completed.

Some community initiatives include the Singapore After-Care Association's befriending programme and the HCSA Highpoint Halfway House. I would like to urge MHA to continue to provide support to these and other ground-up programmes, including with grants and funding, so as to empower the community to play its role in rehabilitation and to help to prevent re-offending.

On a related note, I would like to ask the Minister what other efforts has MHA made to look at the criminal justice system, from a holistic perspective, to prevent individuals from offending or re-offending.

Separately, and based on my experience as a volunteer probono lawyer, I have noticed that there are many drug offence-related re-offenders. This appears to be corroborated by a 2018 paper by Stephanie Chok at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy on drug offenders in Singapore that the recidivism rates for drug offenders has been consistently higher than overall recidivism rates. Furthermore, the figures quoted by Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua yesterday with regard to the noticeable rise in the number of youth drug abusers from 2016 to 2019 are troubling.

I have two questions as regards preventing drug offences in the first place and reducing the likelihood of re-offending.

My first question is with regard to MHA and CNB's collaboration with the community in the fight against drugs. An example is a partnership between PERSES, the Sepaktakraw Federation of Singapore, and the Dadah Itu Haram campaign. As Senior Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim has said about this collaboration, it was a step showing how the rest of the sports community could join in the anti-drug effort. In this regard, could the Minister update on MHA's efforts in spreading the anti-drug message to various communities and the impact it had made thus far?

My second question is with regard to the death penalty for drug offences. A study commissioned by MHA in 2019 on the views of Singapore residents found that the majority felt that the death penalty was more effective than life imprisonment for serious crimes, including drug trafficking. Another study in 2018, this time on a sample of non-Singaporeans who were likely to visit Singapore came to similar conclusions. Minister Shanmugam had also mentioned in the House in October 2020 that there was evidence that knowledge of the death penalty led to a reduction in the amount of drugs trafficked.

As the Minister said then, these and other surveys quite clearly show that there is majority public support for the death penalty.

On this, would the Minister be able to give a comparative view, that is, how Singapore compares with other countries that do not impose the death penalty for drug trafficking offences?

On my final point, Madam, part of the community effort in bolstering our criminal justice system is ensuring that the public support for law enforcement that I mentioned at the start of my speech is not eroded. In this regard, all of us have a part to play.

First, we must make sure that we do not make any allegations about law enforcement without being absolutely sure of the factual basis of these allegations. It is incumbent on the authorities as well to swiftly crush even rumours of any impropriety if they are untrue.

Equally, MHA and the Police must continue to be transparent about disciplinary cases and make these public. This gives confidence that the system of internal checks works and that errant officers are taken to task.

Importantly, Madam, we must also speak up in support of our officers when they do well.

I will end, Madam, with a quote from a LinkedIn post by Ms Sadhana Rai, a criminal defence lawyer at the Law Society's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. She wrote, "In my experience as a defence counsel..." – and we should know that defence counsel are opposite the AGC and opposite the investigation officers (IOs) in the Court setting – "...I have come across some hardworking, sensitive and professional investigation officers who go out of their way to ensure that complainants are safe, comfortable and emotionally supported. These officers accompany complainants to Court, sit through proceedings, speak to the complainants on breaks to make sure they are doing alright and more. We are all important parts in a system that aims to uphold and deliver justice."

Upskilling of Inmates in Prison

Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mdm Chairman, I believe in giving our ex-offenders second chances and preparing them while they are in prison so that they can have a fair shot at it after they are released. I also echo hon Member Zhulkarnain bin Abdul Rahim's suggestion to call ex-offenders the "overcomers" – having overcomed the difficulties of the past.

One of the things inmates worry about is whether they can get a job after prison and whether they can have the right skills to keep up with the demands of the job.

Prisons and Yellow Ribbon Singapore have done a good job in facilitating inmates' learning and upskilling even while they are in prison. I am especially encouraged to know about the Train and Place (TAP) and Grow initiative, where the inmates are offered the opportunity to acquire certificates and complete diploma courses in certain fields, such as media skills training, while in prison. I also understand that inmates can also be matched with specific jobs after they complete their courses with compatible employers who are prepared to give them a chance. This is a great initiative that allows inmates to receive targeted and industry-specific skills training.

Can the Ministry provide more information about how successful the programme has been in helping inmates not just to secure jobs after their release, but in equipping them with the necessary skills to sustain and retain their jobs in the long term?

Lastly, are there any plans to extend the TAP and Grow initiative to other industries?

Yellow Ribbon and Inclusive Hiring

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Chairman, previously, I had spoken on how a Yellow Ribbon "Inclusive Hiring" mark can provide a way for fellow Singaporeans to support businesses with inclusive hiring practices to recognise and channel their custom and businesses towards employers that help lift up our ex-offenders through providing job opportunities and training.

Can the Minister share what progress has been made on improving the job search process for ex-offenders and how can progressive and inclusive human resource practices towards ex-offenders be recognised, incentivised and encouraged further?

Future Plans for Police Cameras

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Madam, the use of Police Cameras is one example of how the Singapore Police Force has leveraged technology to deter, detect and investigate crimes. They are now commonplace in our neighbourhoods and public areas.

Since their installation in 2012, Police Cameras have aided our officers to solve more than 5,000 cases. Feedback from the Police officers have also been positive, with some commenting that these cameras have doubled their effectiveness in solving crimes.

Police Cameras have improved Singapore's safety and security while improving our officers' productivity. However, camera technology and analytics have improved significantly since 2012.

May I ask for an update from the Ministry on their plans for enhancement to Police Cameras to further tackle crimes? How would the Ministry balance crime-solving with privacy? Will the footages be used to tackle social issues, such as illegal smoking?

Use of Cameras and Technology

Mr Vikram Nair: Mdm Chairman, MHA has expanded the use of cameras over the years to improve crime detection and prevention with less heavy reliance on manpower, which is severely constrained.

I recall the move to install Police Cameras in the access points of all HDB flats. Following this, the number of loan shark harassment cases had reduced significantly. And I am aware of at least one murder case where the Police identified and arrested the suspect based on the footage and cameras.

Our roads, too, have become safer. We see more signs of speed cameras and traffic light cameras, which, in turn, generally, encourage compliance, so much so that, whenever there is trouble, people ask for more cameras to be installed.

I had raised previously in this House that I receive regular complaints from residents in relation to speeding at Woodlands Avenue 5 and the initial response was that the Police would send more patrols. But residents were wondering why cameras were not used instead of patrols.

On this, I have two questions. Are there any plans by the Police to increase the use of cameras and surveillance where needed and do the developments in technology mean that the use of these cameras would be less costly in the coming years and therefore, more widespread?

Technological and Data Capability

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Chairman, may I have your permission to take my four cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes, please do.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you. As Singapore transforms to fulfil its vision to be a Smart Nation, the role of data has come increasingly to the forefront.

2.45 pm

With increasing technological capability, the ability to collect and handle a large volume of data and analyse it is now possible, leading to the ability to make predictions and anticipate events and behaviour.

In the realm of public safety and security, this is vital, especially during the pandemic. While machine learning and various software are currently available, the possibility of assessing trends in location, type of crime and likelihoods of criminal activity can allow the Home Team to better understand and prepare for future threats. How does the Home Team intend to use such data to enhance public safety and security, particularly in the monitoring of threats?

Furthermore, given that the nature of much of this data is also private, there is also a need to protect and secure the data to prevent against internal abuse of the data and against cyber attacks.

Technology in the Fight against Crime

With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic affecting how the Home Team’s interactions with the community might take place, it is necessary to take advantage of technology to continue to provide channels to serve the community and allow individuals to access these law enforcement services.

What technology has the Home Team utilised and how has the Home Team used such technology to make its service delivery more efficient and accessible to the public?

Technology – Upskilling for Officers

With the use of data analytics, sensors, AI and automation, training scenarios for officers can be increasingly realistic, thereby allowing for greater preparedness of our officers. As the Home Team looks to train officers in skills that are relevant across Singapore’s public sector, there is a need to train in key tech skills so as to fight crime in the cyber realm. That can take place not only within the Home Team force, but officers can be attached to relevant technology companies and startups within the private sector so as to gain relevant experience and different skillsets.

What are Home Team’s plans to continue to use technology to enhance the effectiveness of the officer’s training as well as to train them in methods and expertise to tackle cybercrime? My fourth cut.

Technology – Deployment in Operations

As technological advances have increased operational capability and the range of monitoring and responses to threats, the nature of the threat towards our national security and safety has evolved. Particularly, many messaging platforms, such as Telegram, have become channels facilitating an online marketplace for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.

The Home Team needs to stay ahead of this threat by similarly taking advantage of technology to both augment and sharpen existing operational responses and capabilities. How will the Home Team deploy technology in its operations?

Safe Reopening of Singapore's Borders

Mr Mark Chay: Mdm Chairman, COVID-19 has impacted our ability to travel the world freely.

Last year, travellers had to navigate many different restrictions imposed by different countries. At last year's Global Esports Games, Singapore welcomed over 150 players and officials to Singapore. These players and officials all stayed in a bubble. I must admit that understanding the immigration requirements and explaining them to 40 different nations was a tedious task, but everyone understood what they needed to do – what they need to do before arrival, during their stay in Singapore and before they departed.

The global Esports Federation also conducted a post-event survey with participants and I am happy to report that participants gave an 89% satisfaction rating at the way our Immigration handled the transit of passengers. Everyone was very impressed with Singapore's efficiency.

I am glad that Singapore is slowly and cautiously opening our borders to allow more travel for work, social and other purposes.

One distinguishing feature of travel during COVID-19 is the travel rules. Each country has its own travel restrictions, instructions and protocols to abide by. Clearing immigration during travel amidst the pandemic can, therefore, be quite a daunting task.

As we further open our borders, how will ICA ensure that the immigration clearance processes for travellers are smooth, seamless and safe for travellers? Is there scope to leverage technology to simplify and automate immigration clearance processes and make them contactless, as far as possible?

Automated Travel Lanes for Singaporeans

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Chairperson, before COVID-19 severely affected air travel around the world, Changi Airport handled about 68 million passengers in 2019.

I note with interest, the recent announcement by ICA that, from next year, all travellers will be able to use the automated immigration clearance lanes, previously reserved for Singaporeans and PRs, upon arrival in Singapore.

Madam, overall, I believe this to be a positive step taken by ICA, given that the advance in technology now allows us to permit all travellers to clear immigration without the need for physically manned checkpoints. This should reduce immigration clearance time for foreigners entering Singapore while reducing the manpower strain on ICA.

I do hope, however, that such a move, does not result in the unintended consequence of increasing the immigration clearance time for Singaporeans.

Further, to me, returning to Singapore from overseas is one of the warmest feelings a Singaporean can experience. Be it returning from work, study or simply a holiday, landing at and stepping into Changi Airport is about coming home, a place we belong. Having a seamless entry back into one’s own country is therefore, a privilege that returning citizens enjoy.

In the premise, I invite the Minister to share with this House whether the move taken by ICA will affect immigration clearance time for Singaporeans and whether a dedicated lane or two can still be reserved for the exclusive use of Singaporeans.

Technology in Rehabilitation

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Mdm Chairman, some months ago, I was privileged to be part of the Yellow Ribbon songwriting competition. As I listened to the songs composed and sung by the talented inmates, the lyrics spoke of their strong will, the voices sang of their resolve to be a better person for their loved ones. And I can feel the desire to turn over a new leaf.

These men are serving time for the offences committed, a necessary tenet of the law and order that keeps our nation safe. However, with the quickening pace of life and changes brought about by technology, a year behind bars today is different from the same 12 months one decade a week ago. The impact is much larger than before.

Mdm Chairman, I read an interview with a man who was released after spending 20 years in prison. He shared that his biggest challenge getting back to normal life is learning to live with technology. We take for granted the conveniences the digital world bring us today but before this man was incarcerated, there was no WiFi, no mobile phone apps – it was a totally different world.

We have seen prisons leverage technology to automate work processes and enhance operational effectiveness. I would like to ask how the Home Team is helping to facilitate rehabilitation efforts, including on the technology front.

COVID-19 has also presented challenges to prison operations and the usual in-person physical engagements and programmes for inmates, for example, visits by loved ones, rehabilitation programmes. How did Prisons overcome this or ensuring that the inmates do not lose out on what they are used to in pre-COVID-19 times?

Reducing New Youth Drug Abusers

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mdm Chairman, Singapore's zero-tolerance approach towards drugs is well-established today. CNB has been effective in countering illicit drugs and drug offenders, particularly traffickers.

While the drug situation in Singapore remains largely under control, the proportion of new youth abusers is concerning. CNB reported that youth aged under 30 continued to form around 60% of new abusers in recent years. We are also starting to see a trend of youths becoming more liberal towards illicit drugs as they become more exposed to alternative lifestyles on social media.

Two key trends are notably concerning that complicate matters.

One, drugs in the form of new psychoactive substances are on the rise and these are not easy to detect or as straightforward to regulate or enforce from a legislative standpoint.

Two, drug traffickers and youth abusers utilise e-commerce services and encrypted messaging apps like Telegram, enabling them to transact swiftly and anonymously in the digital space. To this end, what new measures will the Home Team take to address this trend?

The National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism reported that youths who had a household member with a history of substance abuse will be more likely to abuse drugs than those who did not. In other words, influences from the lived and learning environment matter. As youths spend more time with parents at home and friends as well as teachers at school, how can MHA leverage this ecosystem to identify at-risk youths for more timely intervention?

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza, please take your three cuts together.

Drugs – Deterring Youth Drug Abuse

Mr Christopher de Souza: Madam, my first cut on deterring youth drug abuse. With 75% of young drug abuse arrests being first-time drug abusers and the number of repeat young drug abusers doubling over the last couple of years, there is a distressingly liberal attitude among young people today towards drugs and other such substances. There is a much more curious attitude towards drugs, such as cannabis, and procuring e-cigarettes to vape. Despite the stringent regulation and monitoring and much success in eliminating drugs in our nation, many young people are still able to seek out suppliers via messaging platforms and obtain drugs and drug paraphernalia. While part of the battle is to keep pace and cut off the source of drugs, what initiatives will MHA be deploying to nip the problem in the bud to prevent a drug-tolerant culture from taking root in Singapore?

Drugs – Battling Psychoactive Substances

New psychoactive substances are being supplied and manufactured with great speed. They are concocted in makeshift labs in the region and disseminated throughout ASEAN. How can the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) be made more flexible to quickly make illegal new variants and concoctions of new psychoactive substances before they hit the Singapore market?

Drug-free Singapore – Social Media is Key

Singapore has come a long way in fighting to be a drug-free nation, especially in Southeast Asia where the flow of drugs is rampant. However, we cannot take our success for granted but must continue to stay vigilant in the face of greater complexities in eliminating drugs amidst the pandemic as well as the proliferation of messaging platforms.

With Telegram groups often being used to illegally advertise and supply such prohibited items, the threat has evolved because of increased internet penetration and the abundance of mobile apps that allow for encrypted communications. This facilitates an environment where there is greater anonymity and suppliers have the ability to delete messages once the transaction is complete. My question, therefore is, how is the Home Team using social media to inculcate the merits of a drug-free Singapore in the minds of Singaporeans?

3.00 pm

Rehabilitation of Youth Offenders

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Madam, a September 2021 report on youth delinquency by the National Community of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism showed an encouraging reduction of 43.3% in the number of youth offenders in the last 10 years. I would like to ask whether the Ministry tracks the recidivism level among youth offenders? What percentage are real offenders and when they reoffend, do their offences get more serious in nature?

Is there scope to go further upstream, to work with such youths and reduce the rate of recidivism?

Additionally, the recent investigations into the OCBC phishing scam, revealed that the suspected perpetrators were all youths aged 18 to 22. No doubt, we may see more or similar offences as a new generation increasingly becomes more tech-savvy. Even if proven guilty, given their young age and misguided talent and promise, what efforts will the Ministry undertake to deter youths from misusing technology to commit offences and ensure that those who offend are guided to more constructive use of their talents and skills?

Early Intervention to Prevent Crime

Mr Vikram Nair: Mdm Chairperson, the roots of criminal activity for some offenders start early. This can start with delinquent behaviour and then evolve into involvement in drugs or gangs. Typically, where they get involved in drugs, this is the start of a downward spiral, as they may move from gateway offences like glue sniffing to starting to take drugs and eventually the stronger ones like heroin and methamphetamines. Thereafter, it is a very difficult task to break them out of the cycle.

Singapore has a strong, well-known Yellow Ribbon Programme to help rehabilitate offenders and help them get back into society. However, I think it is even more helpful if we can intervene at an earlier stage, say, at the first signs of delinquent behaviour, or, if possible, even before that, if it is possible to identify youths at-risk.

I would like to ask the MHA what programme it has for early intervention to prevent crimes and whether there are any plans for further programmes?

The Chairman: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, please take your two cuts together.

Helping Offenders Become Overcomers

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Madam, Singapore's two-year recidivism rate is amongst the lowest in the world, with the rate for the 2018 release cohort being 22.1%. Our relative success is fueled by the good work of our officers in MHA and its agencies. It is complemented with an ecosystem of support like Yellow Ribbon Singapore, where I volunteer and other community partners.

Our approach in Singapore is, indeed a whole-of-nation effort to help with the employment and employability of ex-offenders in their path away from recidivism and towards rehabilitation and reintegration.

Society's perception and understanding of the challenges that ex-offenders face are crucial to our reintegration efforts. Clear efforts have to be made to remove stigmatisation and labels. Personally, I prefer the term "overcomers" instead of "ex-offenders" as it better reflects their journey to overcome their chequered and challenging past. I thank Member Mr Mark Chay for his support in this regard.

Let us help offenders become "overcomers". In this regard, how is MHA working with other partners to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, generally, and in particular, to drug-related offences? How is MHA working with the community to strengthen support for ex-offenders? May I suggest, besides rehabilitation and reintegration, we add another reconciliation, that is, reconciliation with their families.

Malay/Muslim Community against Drugs

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Recent statistics show that the number of Malay drug offenders arrested last year declined by 15%, compared to offenders from other communities which declined by only 7%.

The number of new Malay drug offenders declined by 32% and the number of new Malay offenders was less than the Chinese community.

For me, this is something very encouraging to our community and it is the result of efforts by CNB and MHA over the years, especially the “Dadah Itu Haram” campaign which began in April 2017 in support of our Malay/Muslim community’s initiatives.

The “Dadah Itu Haram” campaign has been around for almost five years. And we have already seen how these efforts are effective in fostering greater awareness and reducing the number of drug offenders in our community.

Here, I would like to acknowledge CNB and MHA officers who have been working very hard to help save our community from the drug scourge. Their sacrifices and efforts will shape the future of our children in a life free from drugs. I hope that more community members and organisations will answer the call and get together to assist this noble effort.

In view of these latest statistics, what are MHA's next plans and updates to cooperate with Malay/Muslim organisations on the fight against drugs? What are the lessons and approaches in the “Dadah Itu Haram” campaign that can be applied to reach out to other communities or young people?

Ex-offenders' Continuity of Healthcare

Dr Tan Wu Meng: My Clementi resident came looking for help sometime back, just released from prison, nearly, 60 years old. When he was in Changi Prison, his medical care and follow-ups were at a hospital in the east of Singapore. But upon release home to Clementi in the west, he had a referral letter to the polyclinic listing 11 medical conditions. His medication card had 13 different prescriptions. He had eight medical appointments over the coming months at medical centres in the east of Singapore. Eleven medical conditions, 13 medications on prescription, eight appointments which he would have had to cross the island to attend.

Each trip for medical care and back, from west to east, would have cost him money; transport costs. He shared he was living alone upon release from prison. Not yet found a job, no income. He was on the verge of giving up.

We reached out to the healthcare teams and agencies which were able to come together and help him coordinate his medical care in the west of Singapore near Clementi. But there will be other older Singaporeans with multiple medical conditions just released from prison trying to rebuild their lives.

Can the Minister tell us what is being done to improve handover medical care when prisoners with multiple medical conditions are released and returned to the community, especially if their are existing follow-up is far from home? We know our agencies tried their best. We know our agencies mean well, but let us continue looking at ways to improve and do even better.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take a break now.

Thereupon Mdm Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.09 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.

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

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY – HEAD P (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS)

(Securing our place in the world)

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

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

Head P (cont) –

3.31 pm

Enhance NS Experience

Mr Desmond Choo: Madam, National Service remains ever-important because of our shrinking population. The Home Team's National Servicemen work alongside a full team of full-time officers in ensuring our nation's safety and security. Some of our NSmen go on to become full-time officers after serving National Service, encouraged and inspired by their time spent serving the nation.

Since the pandemic, some of our NSmen have played a different but vital role in our nation's efforts to contain the pandemic. We have seen our NSmen supporting MOH's efforts in fighting COVID-19. For example, some of our NSmen have been assisting in home vaccination efforts and the Home Recovery Programme. We should properly recognise their contributions and continue to ensure that every NSman's experience remains enriching. Can the Home Team share how it plans to further enhance the National Service experience for its National Servicemen?

Home Team NS

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Our NSmen in the Home Team serve in the Police Force and SCDF. They stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our regulars, keeping Singapore safe and secure.

We now have more than a quarter of a million NS officers who have served or are serving in the Home Team. This year also marks the 55th anniversary of National Service in Singapore, or NS55, for short.

Our Home Team NS officers perform extremely important work. Over the years, the nature of this work has evolved, expanded, and the risks and burdens become more onerous. Having the benefit of serving both in the SAF and the Home Team as an NSman, I get a sense that Home Team NSmen are not treated on par and given the same level of support as those serving in the SAF, possibly because of the lack of resources. I hope MHA can find ways to better honour, appreciate and celebrate the contributions of our Home Team NSmen. More importantly, to stay engaged with them throughout their NS and reservist journey.

Keeping Internet Safe for Singaporeans

Mr Desmond Choo: Madam, the Internet has enabled the quick and easy dissemination of harmful content. We have seen the Internet being abused to spread harmful misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccination and, more recently, bank-related scams. Perpetrators who disseminate harmful content under the guise of anonymity has made it even tougher for the authorities to track them down. Furthermore, the vastness of the Internet makes it financially burdensome for the authorities to track such content. We must understand that platforms are intrinsically profit-driven entities. We cannot expect them to put our nation's collective interests before their business objectives.

Last year, the Government had signaled its intention to review the feasibility of regulatory levers to enable the Government to deal with online harms effectively. Can the Ministry provide an update on the review, in particular, what legislation with regard to levers, platforms and content, and what is the timeline?

Protections in the Metaverse

Mr Mark Chay: Mdm Chairman, the metaverse is the seamless convergence of our digital and physical lives, creating a virtual and unified community where people can relax, socialise, play, transact and work. Web3 refers to the third version of the Internet. Even though the metaverse and Web3 will provide opportunities for a better future, we should be concerned about issues of digital policies, digital identity, cybersecurity and data protection.

The metaverse and Web3 will benefit both businesses and consumer environments as well as business-to-business enterprises. For instance, for a manufacturer who wants to purchase equipment for spare parts, the current process involves receiving an email in two-dimensional pictures as a brochure. In the metaverse, there could be a virtual environment to test how the products work in a physical environment. The metaverse is expected to bring more hazards to privacy, safety and security. There are concerns about uncivil behaviour, bullying and stalking in the mixed or virtual reality worlds. The metaverse could also provide forums for manipulation and misinformation.

Web3 is expected to bring about a paradigm shift in the way that people shop, interact socially and browse the Internet. Web3 will focus on improving sharing of content, collective ownership and personalisation.

To ensure that citizens remain protected, can the Ministry consider updating our laws that protect Singaporeans from online harassment, identity theft and virtual crimes?

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza. Take your four cuts together.

Anti-terror Capability – Rehabilitation

Mr Christopher de Souza : Mdm Chair, my first cut. Often, those who are detained for plotting a terror attack or collaborating with overseas units to design a terror attack are misguided in their thinking and philosophy. Detaining them so as to prevent them from carrying out the act is key, but, of equal importance, is the effort to rehabilitate them such that they form their own view that violent, extreme, radical thinking manifesting in terror-plotting against the innocent is just simply incorrect. How does MHA intend to intensify its efforts in such rehabilitation and how successful has MHA been so far in rehabilitating potential terrorist threats?

Anti-terrorism Capability – Intelligence

Working alongside regional and global partners to combat terror and potential terror threats is key to helping prevent an incident from happening on our shores. How will MHA continue to be a key partner in the region and, indeed, the globe, in information sharing to achieve a zero-tolerance attitude towards terrorism in Singapore?

Anti-terror Capability – Total Defence

MHA’s and its agencies’ partnership with the community to ensure radical, violent extremism does not take root in the thinking of Singaporeans is key in ensuring, pre-emptively, that the prospect of a terror attack in Singapore is minimised. How does MHA intend to intensify its collaboration with community groups to ensure that terrorism is rejected by all communities in Singapore?

Partnering the Community to Fight Crime

The Home Team has served Singapore well for many years in keeping our nation safe and secure. Despite the landscape constantly changing and security threats getting increasingly complicated, the various agencies have risen to the challenge and maintained a very high standard of efficiency and having great precision in eliminating and reducing threats. One aspect of the Home Team force in serving the public is protecting and partnering the community to face any obstacle. That includes how the public can contact the various departments and Statutory Boards to provide feedback or raise queries and concerns or seek help. That also includes the day-to-day service to the community to protect them from the myriad of potential threats. How can the partnership with communities and neighbourhoods be enhanced to deter crime?

The Chairman: Ms Carrie Tan, not here. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Errant Behaviour of Debt Collectors

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mdm Chairman, we have all heard stories of errant debt collectors who use every tactic imaginable to collect from those who have loaned monies but may have fallen into arrears for various reasons.

Cases which involve individuals from whom debt collectors approach in their residential homes are especially troubling. Oftentimes, in such cases, the debt collectors not only harass the debtors and their families, but also cause disamenities in the neighbourhood. Families with seniors or young children are rightly concerned that such actions taken by debt collectors may inadvertently and potentially cause harm to them and other families living in the vicinity, even if they are not the ones in debt.

Further, as we know, over the past two years, the pandemic has caused job insecurities for Singaporeans in many industries affected by the pandemic and measures taken to protect public health. This could have caused some families to fall into financial hardship or exacerbate debt-related difficulties.

I, therefore, invite the Minister to share with this House whether the Government has any plans to address this issue and, if so, how do they intend to do so.

Prevent "Money Mules"

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Chairman, the number of online scams has escalated in recent years. Criminals are taking advantage of more people communicating and transacting online due to the pandemic. Most common cases include technical support, Internet love, e-commerce, jobs, investment, loan- and bank-related phishing scams and/or China-related official impersonations. The money conned from the victims are often channelled through money mules, which allow scammers to use their bank accounts or assisted them by carrying out bank transfers and withdrawals.

Last month, the Police investigated 157 people for suspected involvement in scams or money mule operations. In 2021, the Singapore Police Force arrested and investigated more than 7,000 scammers and money mules. How can we prevent people from becoming money mules? And they seem to become younger than before. In addition to public education and campaigns, would the Ministry consider new measures in collaboration with e-financial institutions?

Private Security Industry

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: The security sector has seen several changes over the years. From the NSRS and then WSQ skills requirements and licensing of individual officers, annual assessment of security agencies, implementation of the Progressive Wage Model in 2016 and the launch of the security industry transformation map in 2018, officers and agencies have regularly been subjected to tighter and higher benchmarks. This is great work by the tripartite bodies in the sector – unions, employer associations and, especially Government agencies like MHA, SPF, MOM and others.

The private security sector is a largely outsourced one. This means that other than the officers and their employers – the security agencies – there is a third stakeholder that plays a disproportionately large role in how well deployed or productive the security efforts are. They are the service buyers.

The best way to procure security is an outcome-based contracting model: to first be clear of the security objectives sought for the site through a proper analysis and audit. This is then followed by the installation of the right security technologies to harden the site before deploying the right manpower with the right skills to leverage technologies to achieve the desired outcomes.

3.45 pm

Sad to say, the Union of Security Employees has shared with me that many buyers today still engage in "cheap-sourcing" instead. "Cheap-sourcing" is easy to implement – ask for three quotes by headcount basis and whoever supplies the security officers at the cheapest rates gets the job. Whether the number of security officers or the skillsets of the security officers are adequate for the site is usually not the key deciding factor. This is especially so for the private residential sector, which is estimated to be about 25% of sites procuring private security in Singapore.

"Cheap-sourcing" often leads to poor outcomes and low productivity. Officers are tasked to man CCTV screens and manually record vehicle licence plates even today when technologies to handle such tasks are readily available at very affordable prices. Many other examples abound.

I would like to urge MHA to consider measures that can be imposed to guide buyers of private security towards an outcome-based contracting model. This will help increase the security outcomes for the sites and also raise productivity.

A first step to consider, perhaps, is to look at how the relevant legislation can be modified to require licensed security consultants to be appointed as qualified persons of sorts, much like the construction industry, to ensure that security contracts encompass and embrace outcome-based contracting.

Uplifting Security Officers

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Madam, I echo Member Patrick Tay's call to MHA to do more to shift buyers of private security services towards outcome-based contracting – outcomes that can and should be achieved by security technology playing a central role to augment manpower.

Unfortunately, the practice today, especially in the residential sector of the market, is still "cheap-sourcing" – based on headcount. The operating model and mindset are still very much about having warm bodies on site to do tasks that technology can already do today.

We need to help the sector progress beyond this "headcounts" mentality. I think it is a big reason why the sector continues to face an estimated shortfall of 10,000 to 15,000 officers today. Meanwhile, existing officers in the sector put in longer hours and unsustainable shifts to plug the gap.

I understand from the Union of Security Employees that split shifts with two hours in between, for example, are a common practice today. But during these two hours, the officer may very well be unable to leave the site, especially if it is in a far-flung location. Job conditions for our officers can become much better if operating models and practices shift decisively.

In addition, I would like to ask if MHA has other plans to uplift security officers, encourage women participation in the sector and enhance respect by society at large for the profession.

More Effective Measures to Combat Scams

Mr Derrick Goh: Mdm Chairman, combating scams urgently was a topic I raised in my previous Budget speech. In 2021, crimes related to scams have increased significantly. SPF reported over 46,000 crimes, the highest in the decade, driven by scam cases being four times that in 2017.

Last year, scam victims lost a total of $635 million. This is sizable and more than the $500 million Jobs and Business Support Package or the $560 million Household Support Package. If scams are not curbed safely and resolutely, coupled with the looming threat of more complex cyber crimes, our national efforts towards creating a safer digital economy may be derailed.

While our agencies have stepped up, cases show that scammers are innovative and brazen and appear to be a step ahead. Scam typologies consistently evolve to exploit different weaknesses along the payments value chain, testing every link of the digital ecosystem and generally, originate from overseas.

SPF has established the Anti-Scam Centre, which has proven effective in our fight against scams. This partnership with stakeholders across the payments value chain seems to have borne fruit, with 24,000 bank accounts frozen and over $160 million in scam proceeds recovered.

Similarly, MHA also needs to enhance cross-jurisdictional cooperation to cripple foreign scam syndicates to effectively recover lost monies.

On this note, how will MHA step up partnerships with both public and private stakeholders in the digital ecosystem? Can the Minister elaborate on MHA's strategy to foster stronger partnerships with foreign agencies?

Community engagement is equally core to SPF's crime prevention strategy. In our fight against scams, a vigilant and discerning public is the first and foremost important line of defence, as are those in the value chain such as online marketing places, telcos, fintech and banks. All stakeholders have a role to play.

On this basis, what are the Home Team's new plans to develop and deepen the engagement and set minimum standards across the payments ecosystem to defend against digital crimes?

Madam, the Police must be better resourced to maintain its effectiveness in a more complex digital world. Minister of State Desmond Tan had previously mentioned in this House that Police investigators are stretched, given more workload. As such, beyond an increase in manpower, we also need to equip investigators with the right cyber and commercial crime expertise.

In noting the modest 1.8% increase in MHA's 2022 Budget, can the Minister clarify if the expenditures have planned for additional manpower as well as capabilities so that our Police can be more effective in stemming the growth of scam cases to keep Singapore safe and secure?

Lastly, given the recent media reports and commentaries, can the Minister provide the Government's views on the Court of Appeals' judgment on the constitutional challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code.

The Chairman: Minister K Shanmugam.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mdm Chairman. I thank the hon Members for their comments.

I will first address Mr Derrick Goh's question about the recent Court of Appeals' judgment on the constitutional challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code. AGC is looking at the judgment carefully. The Government has explained its stand. Prime Minister Lee said in Parliament in 2007, when the Penal Code was amended but section 377A was left unchanged, that we want to be "a stable society with traditional heterosexual family values but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and to contribute to society."

He added, "Among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters or some of our children. Our kith and kin."

This remains our stand today. These are deeply divisive issues. That is why we take a "live and let live" approach. We seek to be an inclusive society where mutual respect and tolerance for different views and practices are paramount. The Government has thus taken the approach that while section 377A remains on the books, there will be no proactive enforcement. And AGC takes a similar approach.

We expressly included in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) that any attack on LGBTQ+ groups or on persons because they are LGBTQ+ will be an offence and will not be tolerated.

LGBTQ+ individuals are entitled to live peacefully without being attacked or threatened. Likewise, any attack on any other group based on their religion or religious beliefs, even if those beliefs run counter to values held by LGBTQ+ groups, will not be acceptable.

So, our emphasis on gradual evolution and traditional families remain constant. However, since this issue was last discussed in Parliament in 2007, social attitudes towards homosexuality have gradually shifted.

One of the things that upsets the LGBTQ+ community is that many feel that their experience of being hurt or rejected by their families, friends, schools and companies is not recognised, indeed, often denied.

At the same time, a large majority want to preserve the overall tone of our society, in particular, the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and their children should be raised within such a family structure. Their concern is not section 377A per se but the broader issues of marriage and family.

Many amongst this group also support decriminalising homosexual sex between men.

Both these viewpoints are valid and important. Policies need to evolve to keep abreast of such changes in views and legislation needs to evolve to support updated policies.

The Government is considering the best way forward. We must respect the different viewpoints, consider them carefully, talk to the different groups and if and when we decide to move, we will do so in a way that continues to balance between these different viewpoints and avoids causing a sudden destabilising change in social norms and public expectations.

If you look at successive Court judgments over the years, the Courts have consistently taken the position that these are highly contentious social issues and within the province of Parliament. The heterosexual stable family remains the social norm and the current legal position reflects our society's norms, values and attitudes. That is what the Courts have said.

In this latest judgment, the Court noted the compromise which Singapore has struck in respect of section 377A is unique. Our approach strikes a balance between preserving the legislative status quo whilst accommodating the concerns of those directly affected by the legislation.

The Court recognised that the Government did this in order to avoid driving a deeper wedge within our society. It also noted that Singapore's approach seeks to keep what to do with section 377A within the democratic space.

Socially charged issues such as section 377A call for continued discussion and open-ended resolution within the political domain, where we can forge consensus rather than in win-lose outcomes in Court. In this way, we can accommodate divergent interests, avoid polarisation, facilitate incremental change.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the importance of creating space for peaceful coexistence among the various groups, especially since the balance between the various interests around section 377A has grown more delicate.

These opinions align with the approach that the Government has taken in dealing with section 377A and that it intends to take as it considers the changes in our social landscape since 2007.

I will now move on to the rest of my Committee of Supply (COS) speech. I will focus on two issues – the death penalty and our approach to rehabilitation. My colleagues from MHA will talk about MHA's plans, new capabilities, use of technology, tackling drug abuse and the fight against scams.

4.00 pm

Mdm Chairman, with your permission, may I distribute the Annexes to the Members of the House?

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Criminal justice systems have various objectives. I have spoken before about this. I will mention four today: first, to deter crimes; second, to provide proportionate punishment for offenders; three, to protect public safety; and four, to rehabilitate ex-offenders.

How our Government balances these objectives depends on a country’s needs and values. In that context, I want to talk about the death penalty, which I will call DP for short. Annex A sets out the list of offences for which the DP can be imposed.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if the death penalty remains relevant. I will answer by making the following points: first, does the DP have deterrent effect; second, what is its effect on the behaviour of drug traffickers; third, Singaporeans' attitude towards the DP; fourth, specifically, what are the wider harms imposed on society by drug traffickers; and fifth, the outcomes in Singapore as a result of the approach we have taken.

First, the deterrent effect of DP. In our view, it has had a clear, strong deterrent impact, based on past behaviour, as well, as current trends. With your permission, Mdm Chairman, may I display slides on the screen, please?

The Chairman: Please go ahead. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Let me deal with the past first. In 1961, DP for kidnapping was introduced. Three years before, the average was 29 cases per year. Three years after, the average became one case per year. It has remained very low since.

Firearms robbery. It was on the rise in the 1970s. In 1973, 174 cases. Government introduced DP in November 1973. The number of firearms offences immediately fell by 39% in 1974 to 106 cases and continued to decline in subsequent years, ever lower. Firearms offences remain very rare today in Singapore. So, that is a historical perspective and the charts speak for themselves.

Let me talk about the current situation. I could go on a little bit about it, but let me just deal with a few short points. It appears to us, specifically in relation to drugs, that our position on drugs, including imposing the DP is well known in some of our neighbouring regions and that has contributed to a strong deterrent effect.

MHA specifically commissioned a study on persons from parts of the region outside Singapore. These are places from where most of our arrested drug traffickers have come from in recent years. We wanted to get a sense of what people in these places knew and thought. And this is what we found: 82% of respondents believed that DP makes people not to want to commit serious crimes in Singapore. These are not Singaporeans, these are people in the region – 69% believed that the DP is more effective in discouraging people from committing serious crimes, compared to life imprisonment.

There are many around the world, some in Singapore, who say: "Well, why do you not replace it with life imprisonment?"; 69% in the region believe that the DP is more effective in discouraging people from committing serious crimes compared to life imprisonment; 83% believed that the DP makes people not to want to traffic substantial amount of drugs into Singapore – 83%.

I emphasise this – these are the places from which many of our traffickers come from. You remove the death penalty, that number, 83%, will surely be reduced because there is money to be made. Just go back to the second question, 69% believe that DP is more effective than life imprisonment. It is a fair assumption to say that more people will traffic drugs into Singapore, more drugs will enter into Singapore, there will be more drug abusers in Singapore and more Singaporean families and individuals will be harmed, if we remove the DP, in particular, the mandatory death penalty (MDP).

It is a stark choice for Singaporeans. So, those who campaign against the DP ought to answer these questions. These are debates we can have in society, but they ought to answer these questions and deal with them and face up to them squarely, and then debate on that basis.

Public policy requires making choices. My view is that Singaporean lives and livelihoods, a large number of that, will be at risk. That is why we have taken a tough line on this.

Second, the introduction of the DP has also changed the behaviour of drug traffickers. In 1990, the Government introduced the MDP for trafficking in more than 1.2 kilogrammes of opium. Comparing the four years before and after, there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight trafficked. In a 2018 study conducted by MHA, we found a very high level of awareness of the DP amongst convicted drug traffickers.

This had influenced their drug trafficking behaviour and it is consistent with the survey I spoke about earlier in the region. One of the traffickers in this study said the following: he knew very clearly that if he were caught for trafficking a small amount, he would just go to jail for trafficking. But if he was caught with a larger amount, he would be at risk of the death penalty. And so he trafficked below the threshold amount.

Mr Murali Pillai also asked if Singaporeans continued to support the use of the DP. That is my third point, the majority of Singapore residents support the use of the DP and agree that the DP deters serious crimes. In 2019, our MHA survey showed very strong support for the DP. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2021, with a segment specifically on MDP. The results are still being analysed. So, my statements on that are preliminary.

On the question as to whether the MDP is appropriate: 81% said it was appropriate for intentional murder; 71% said it was appropriate for firearm offences; 66% said that it was appropriate for drug trafficking; and more than 80% also believed that the DP had deterred the commission of these offences in Singapore.

But it is not just a question of survey results, whether more people agree or less people agree. If, as policy-makers, having studied the issues and the facts, we believe this is the right thing to do, then it is our duty, both mine and Members, if you are convinced, to try and persuade people on what is the right course of action. In the end, we also have to lead by persuading, explaining and if we are wrong, then the counter-arguments prevail.

I will now move to my fourth point on the wider harm of drugs and why we take a firm stance. Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked how Singapore compared with countries that did not have DP for drug offences. Well, let me answer it in a broader way. Let us take a look at other cities around the world, some of which have taken a softer stance on drugs and some are going or have already gone down the path of legalisation. See the examples from the US and the UK in Annex B-1 and Annex B-2.

A CDC report estimates that more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the US took place in the one-year period ending April 2021. In Delaware, one of the places most affected by drug abuse in the US, more than 2,300 people have died of drug overdoses since 2016. That is about the number of people who have also died of COVID-19 in Delaware, since the beginning of the pandemic until end of 2021.

In Baltimore, spending on drugs is estimated at an incredible US$165 million, with over 19,000 heroin users. That is just heroin. People are caught in brutal, vicious cycles. Criminal records and poor job prospects push them into the drug trade. And violence is part and parcel of their lives; either they use violence or it is used on them. And the impact of drugs on innocent children and babies is rarely ever discussed.

With your permission, Mdm Chairman, may I display a video on the screen? I think it is useful for Members to watch this video.

The Chairman: Please go ahead. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: In many countries, including in Singapore, there is a small group who will bring out sob stories on the drug traffickers and their parents and how they should not face the penalties that the law provides. Their parents will be put on display crying. What about the babies? What about the innocent children? Who speaks for them? Huge numbers of babies are born in withdrawal and addiction, and these drug traffickers profit from destroying these children and their families. Where should our sympathies be placed?

Based on the 2017 data, nearly 80 newborns are diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) every day. This is a snapshot, what you saw, of what it looks like. We have largely not had this in Singapore. It is news to us. So, those who ask us to abolish the death penalty should answer these questions.

Madam, may I seek your permission to play a second video now? This is a situation in San Francisco. If it gets to that situation, it will be too late.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

4.15 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: There are some who will say, "We are not talking about decriminalisation in Singapore". They will say our laws are already adequate. We are talking only about removing the DP or MDP; keep all the other tough laws.

My response is this. First of all, I gave you the survey results. Removing the DP and what impact it will have, psychologically.

Second, we have never said that the DP or MDP alone is sufficient. It is, however, a key part of our system and approach to deal with drug trafficking. You need many different things to keep Singapore relatively free from drugs. Good intelligence, strong enforcement, stiff punishments, rehabilitation for offenders, and deterrence. And you heard earlier what people in the region say, what convicted drug traffickers say about the DP being a very strong deterrent.

So, I am telling Members we have to think very carefully about this before removing any part of this framework or going soft. Those who advise for removal often compare us with countries which have already lost the drug war. I am not sure if they understand the consequences or choose not to understand them. Because the consequences are plain for everyone to see. It is not rocket science.

Mdm Chairman, with your permission, can I have another video played on the situation in San Francisco from a former abuser?

The Chairman: Yes. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: In the 1990s, CNB arrested about 6,000 abusers per year. Now, it arrests about 3,000 to 3,500 per year. It has not become less effective, it is just that we have managed to reduce the number of people who engage in drug abuse.

It is a large number of people, potential abusers, whose lives have been saved. And it is not just them, if you consider their families. So, many more have been saved. And crime has been kept low in Singapore because the drugs abuse situation has been kept low.

Singapore does well in measures of safe cities, such as the Gallup survey and the Safe Cities Index. But if we change the laws, we cannot expect crime to remain low.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The drug problem has also contributed to the homelessness situation in many major US cities. The tents that were in Skid Row in LA now covers many blocks, and this is what it looks like. Chairman, can I have your permission to play video three please?

The Chairman: Please do. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: I am not seeking to draw a direct comparison. There are many other reasons for homelessness in these places. But just note, the homeless also have addiction and drug abuse problems and some of that will spill over; when people cannot live with others because of drug abuse problems, they will spill out onto the streets and crime will go up.

If you look in the UK, we see similar problems. In Sheffield, for example, the drug problem has led to an increase in violent and armed crime. Innocent children get killed. The number of people dying of drug-related deaths in Sheffield has tripled between 2010 and 2020.

Now, let me turn to outcomes in Singapore. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether there was a worsening of the drug situation. My answer is that the number of drug abusers in Singapore remains low, though there are some worrying trends. The number of new drug abusers is higher than we would like it to be.

I had earlier shared how the number of abusers arrested in Singapore has, over the years, gone down, and how that is also linked to low crime. Drugs are not the sole cause of murders, violence or crime. When we look at the overseas examples, a variety of other factors shape safety in cities, including the availability of guns, how effective the criminal justice system and the police are, and many other factors. But in my view, drug abuse and the prevalence of drug gangs are an important contributing factor and it links up to quite a lot of other factors.

So, by being tough on drug offences, we minimise the harms of drugs in our society. If we removed the DP, I have no doubt, more drug syndicates and traffickers will bring larger amounts of drugs into Singapore. Singaporeans and their families will suffer. We prefer not to have to impose the DP on anyone, but we must continue to do what is best for us as a national policy.

Mr Murali Pillai also asked whether we would consider allowing issuance of Certificates of Substantive Assistance (CSA) to offenders when the case is before the Court of Appeal, instead of before their trial.

The purpose of the CSA is to encourage offenders to come clean and to provide assistance before trial, provide assistance to CNB in breaking down criminal gangs, drug gangs. The purpose will be undermined, if we allow offenders to fight a case, put up a defence based on other legal arguments and then offer the information later and ask for a CSA. So, we do not intend to make that move.

So, that is what I have to say on DP. Given the time available, I have not said everything I would like to have said.

Let me now move on to the second part of my speech, which is rehabilitation.

There is a tendency to think of the Singapore system as being tough. I do not blame Members because I have just spent, I think the last 20 minutes or so explaining why we need to be tough on drug offenders.

But to describe it simply as tough is not a complete and accurate descriptor. We have to be tough on drugs, but the complete picture, even on drugs, is not about just being tough. We are tough on those that we have to be tough on. That is, the drug traffickers. But, for example, drug abusers, we try to not even treat them as criminals. We, instead, treat their drug dependency through a variety of means. Without a criminal record, if their situation is that they are only drug abusers and have not committed any other crime.

And our criminal justice system has evolved quite substantially to help those who have gotten onto the wrong side. One key aspect of that is rehabilitation. So, let me talk about the different aspects of it.

As part of rehabilitation, we have moved to alternate types of sentencing. Annex C lists some of the types of orders which our Courts can make for minor offences. The Courts can consider these in appropriate cases, instead of traditional sentences, such as imprisonment or fine. They are the: Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO), Day Reporting Order (DRO), Community Work Order (CWO), Community Service Order (CSO) and Short Detention Order (SDO).

A second aspect is rehabilitation within prison. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about our efforts to improve the employability of inmates and our work with the community in bringing down recidivism rates. Our two-year recidivism rate is the lowest it has been. 20% for the most recent release cohort. It is one of the lowest for comparable cities around the world.

But there is more to be done. The five-year recidivism rate for the 2016 release cohort is higher, at 41%. It has gone down a little bit over the years, but we want to try and bring it down further.

There are some factors that can lead to a successful reintegration in the long term. These include stable employment, positive pro-social networks and personal motivation to seek help and contribute to society.

When inmates are admitted to prison, they have their risks and needs identified and undergo appropriate programmes to address them. There are four broad areas: one, psychology-based correctional programmes; two, family programmes; three, skills training and employment assistance; and four, community corrections.

Under psychology-based correctional programmes, correctional rehabilitation specialists and psychologists do intervention programmes for inmates. Inmates may have rehabilitation needs, including relating to substance abuse, anti-social attitudes, interpersonal violence, sexual violence and other mental health needs. So, our experts will look at these issues.

The second aspect is working with the family. Strong family support is essential in the rehabilitation and re-integration journey. Prisons conducts programmes, social skills training programme and the Family Reintegration Programme (FRP). The aim is to help the inmates link up, bond with their family, strengthen the bonds with their family and loved ones.

Prisons also works with community partners, for example, Centre for Fathering, The Salvation Army and New Life Stories, to facilitate family bonding programmes for inmates and their children.

Some families may also face difficulties during the inmates’ incarceration. Prisons proactively refers families of inmates who require assistance to Family Service Centres. In the broader community, grassroots volunteers are roped in to support families impacted by incarceration. Today, there are over 1,200 grassroots volunteers under the Yellow Ribbon Community Project, involving all 93 divisions across Singapore.

Third is the Skills Training and Employment Assistance. This is a key focus. Having a stable job upon release reduces the risk of re-offending.

Mr Mark Chay asked about the success of the Train and Place (TAP) and Grow Initiative. The TAP and Grow initiative works on equipping inmates with skills to secure and sustain jobs. He also asked if there are plans to expand this initiative. The Prison School deals with inmates. They can go for academic programmes while in prison. Programmes range from GCE to diploma and degree programmes.

4.30 pm

Last year, Prisons and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) worked with ITE to introduce the NITEC in Services – Business Services Programme. The first batch of 29 graduated in February this year.

Under the TAP and Grow initiative, training academies in prison have been set up in partnership with the media, precision engineering and logistics sectors. Inmates will be offered jobs by the partner employers upon release. Twenty-eight inmates completed the training and graduated with diplomas in media courses. Some of them have since been released and they are working in media-related jobs. Others are waiting for job interviews. There were 30 inmates from the first batch of training programmes for precision engineering and logistics and about 650 inmates will benefit from the TAP and Grow initiative in these three sectors every year.

This year, YRSG does aim to make the initiative bigger and go into the food services sector. YRSG has also developed a digital literacy masterplan for inmates to gain basic digital skills in prison so that they are better prepared for the job market upon release. An estimated 750 inmates will be trained in basic digital skills each year. YRSG has also partnered IMDA to roll out digital skills training for older residents at the Selarang Halfway House and this training helps with digital services, including Government services and financial services.

The fourth aspect I want to mention is community corrections. Research has shown that there are better rehabilitation outcomes when rehabilitation in prison is complemented by community-based programmes. And Prisons has been expanding community corrections. As at end of 2021, there were about 3,400 supervisees undergoing rehabilitation in the community, double the number from five years ago.

Results from community corrections continue to be encouraging. In 2021, close to 90% of the inmates who were placed on community-based programmes completed them successfully. Inmates who have completed these programmes have a lower risk of reoffending. Prisons is also developing a Digitalised Learning and Support Package for inmates. The aim is to better prepare inmates for their emplacement in the community.

The efforts I have described will not be effective if the community is not willing to give ex-offenders a second chance. YRSG helps with our reintegration efforts and my colleague, Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim, will speak about this later.

Mr Leon Perera then reprised a part of the FICA debate. At that time, I pointed out to him that, in Singapore, we take investigations very seriously and I explained how the system works and that the Prime Minister can be the subject of independent investigations. He did not respond then, but he has come back to it today.

What is our structure? If there is wrongdoing by anyone, whether a Minister or civil servant or private sector person, there will be investigations. Very few people doubt that. And, over the years, we have added on the checks. This Government has added on checks on itself, which are very rare elsewhere. We institutionalised it such that the CPIB can go straight to the Prime Minister but, where the Prime Minister himself is the possible subject of investigations, or if the Prime Minister does not want to do something, the CPIB can go to the President. Not many countries have done this. As I have said, I will come back to this point.

Therefore, if there is any wrongdoing or suspected wrongdoing, known to anyone, including suspicion of foreign interference or influence, you can let CPIB know. CPIB has the resources to carry out the investigations and it has the ability to tap onto other agencies for the appropriate additional help or work that needs to be done. And FICA put in place a framework where interactions cross the line and you become the subject of foreign influence. So, there is a legal basis to act.

Mr Leon Perera's suggestion, if I understood him correctly, is that why not we set up a separate ombudsman with the resources to carry out all these investigations? Because he had a question about whether the CPIB was adequately resourced, trained, does it have the ability to handle these matters? So, my inference from that way of phrasing the question is, therefore the agency, whichever agency is set up, must replicate, I suppose, many parts of our law enforcement agencies, including our intel agencies, so that they can do this on a standalone basis. If that is the suggestion, if I understood him correctly, I would suggest it does not make much sense because how do you replicate, and at what cost an entire investigative mechanism outside the Government?

And let me make three points.

If you only have the ombudsman without this apparatus that I have described, then he or she will go to the law enforcement agencies. Here, in such a situation, the law enforcement agencies can go to the President. That is the check. There is an independent person who can give the directions and who can authorise.

Second, Mr Leon Perera referred to New Zealand and I have often found that, we make these references – they sound sexy, but then, when you actually look at what is happening, I find that the debates get very academic, without any grounding in reality, without perhaps either understanding or acknowledging what really happens in Singapore. What is our situation – how well we have managed to handle and keep corruption low and official wrongdoing low and how other countries are in this context?

Let me just read something from The Guardian, which is I think in January 2020, which wrote about New Zealand and foreign influence: "New Zealand's international reputation for political integrity has taken a battering recently. The country's Minister for Justice Andrew Little admitted last month, like many democracies around the world, ours is vulnerable to those abroad who would seek to interfere in our democratic processes and influence the outcome." I am not going to read the whole article. I will make it available to Members or I will give the reference in a while.

A Financial Times article this month said that New Zealand was "on the edge of viability as a member" of its allied relationships because of its "supine attitude towards China" and "compromised political system".

New Zealand's National Party Member of Parliament Todd McClay was featured in a report by Freedom House as an example of how they say which foreign government forges relationships with foreign politicians who promote a certain view in local media. McClay is infamous for receiving NZ$150,000 from a China-based businessman, Lang Lin. New Zealand allows donations from New Zealand-registered companies even if they are foreign-owned. The country's new legislation on electoral funding did not include changes to this massive loophole.

In 2016, New Zealand was described as "at the heart" of global money laundering. The ease for foreigners to set up a company in the country is one of the reasons why money launderers have been attracted to do business there. You would think New Zealand's other political parties would be making hay with all this material, but they have been mute.

I would ask Members to perhaps do their research before they cite various countries and their institutions as models.

Second, here we have an elected Government, which has to govern, and I will come back to this point and explain it a bit later.

Third, let me ask, you set up an ombudsman with or without the full suite of resources and without any oversight from the Government, who then deals with misconduct by the ombudsman or the officers within that office?

Mr Leon Perera said during the FICA debate "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", if I recall correctly. For some reason, I think that phrase seems to have lost favour now. Who guards the guards? Take a hypothetical situation: say, you have an organisation, where the top leaders engage in wrongdoing or, for example, say, they set up a disciplinary committee to cover up what they did rather than actually investigate, I think you can ask "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". And if Mr Leon Perera – I suppose if he was part of any such organisation, would be the first one to make such a point.

But for the Government, with the systems in place and the variety of people who can lodge complaints and investigate – AGO, Attorney-General, you have CPIB, the Police – civil servants are obliged if they think that a Minister is doing wrong to take it up to a higher authority and, if they believe that the higher authority is not acting properly, they can take it up all the way. And these civil servants are protected through the structure of Public Service Commission, which, in turn, is protected through the fact that appointment cannot be interfered with willy-nilly by the Government. So, if you take the senior appointments, including the chief of CPIB, Chief Justice, Attorney-General – all these – there are carefully constructed structures on these appointments. So, I would say, look at all that first and look at the ground situation before we start talking about replicating more and more institutions outside.

In contrast, look at countries with a longer runway of democracy. Australia – I stand corrected – but in the short time I had since Mr Leon Perera spoke, the example I found is Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a state-level agency that reports to the premier; in this case, the case that was highlighted to me, the Prime Minister of New South Wales.

If you look at what is the situation in the UK – I am reading from something that says "Institute for Government – Ministerial Code", what does the Code say? All of the Codes, meaning the Codes for Wales, Scotland and UK, give the final authority for decisions about action to be taken to the Prime Minister or First Minister or, in Northern Ireland, the relevant nominating officer for a particular Minister's party. So, it is the prime minister. Since 2006, UK Government Ministerial Code breaches have been investigated through an independent adviser on ministerial interest or by the cabinet secretary, but there is no requirement to follow any particular process. That is the UK situation. And I think the Member will be well aware of the situation in the UK more recently and for some period in the recent past.

Here, a second question on caning and whether there was a requirement for those who have been caned to thank the officers after the caning. There is no such requirement.

4.45 pm

And he has suggested there should be – no surprises – an outside commission to decide on institutional caning.

Over the years, I have listened to the speeches, Mr Leon Perera, in particular. There seems to be a typical solution that is suggested for many different aspects of Government: set up an independent mechanism outside. I mean, reading from his speech on 4 November 2020: "an ombudsman would function as an independent office to investigate complaints about administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, inconsistency, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness".

Every aspect of Government, anyone who is unhappy, go to an ombudsman, you have got to then set up an entire huge structure at the taxpayers' expense to investigate this, rather than having a proper legal process, including a complaint system, independent investigations set up, say, by the Police with some outside people sitting on it, or judicial review.

In FICA, there was a suggestion of ombudsman. Prisons, another agency. I mean, essentially, we can subcontract many aspects of Government, if we go down this route. And it will not solve the problems, because who guards the guards?

So, I would suggest we start with what is working well, what is not working, and for what is not working, how do we better do things. I think these are the things on which there can be positive contributions, and my Ministry will always be open to positive contributions, regardless of who it comes from, whether people in this Chamber, whether from the Government or Opposition, or members of public. If the suggestion is good and valid, we will study it. If it is possible to implement it, we will implement it.

The Chairman: Second Minister Josephine Teo.

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Chairman, in 2015, MHA started our ambitious Home Team Transformation Journey. We recognised the need to overhaul the Home Team’s operational model to ensure we would be future-ready to meet evolving challenges, as new threats emerge amidst higher public expectations, rising workload and manpower constraints.

Seven years on, we have seen encouraging results. In the 2020 edition of the Home Team Public Perception Survey, over 88% of the respondents agreed that the Home Team uses technology effectively to enhance Singapore’s safety and security.

In the era of hyper-innovation, each successful adoption of technology is merely the beginning of more to come. I will update Members on our efforts in three areas: first, new capabilities for greater operational effectiveness; second, safer and more convenient services for the public; and, third, upskilling of our officers.

First, our operational effectiveness.

Mr Christopher de Souza said as the nature of threats evolve, the Home Team needs to stay ahead by using technology to augment our operational responses and capabilities. We cannot agree more. Public trust is built on our ability to detect and prevent threats, and our speed of incident response.

Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Vikram Nair asked about the Police Cameras. Fortunately, we are operating from a position of strength. In terms of detection and prevention of threats, Police Cameras deployed in public places island-wide have helped SPF solve more than 6,000 cases. Their presence has also deterred criminals. Reports of crimes such as unlicensed moneylending have decreased by 94% from 2013 to 2021, between January and June, at approximately 2,100 HDB blocks installed with cameras.

SPF will now expand its camera networks to more than 200,000 cameras by 2030 to continue to safeguard our public housing estates. In a survey conducted by SPF in 2021, 91% of respondents supported the installation of Police Cameras in public areas to deter, detect and solve crimes. As at end 2021, SPF has completed the installation of about 90,000 cameras at HDB blocks, multi-storey car parks, town centres, neighbourhood centres and hawker centres.

SPF will continue to expand the cameras’ coverage to more public spaces and heartland areas to improve our response against crime and security threats. The footage from these cameras is stored securely and only accessed by authorised officers. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is applied to help officers analyse the high-volume of footage.

SCDF has also been enhancing its capability over the years to better detect hazardous materials. In the next few years, SCDF will implement a real-time 24/7 nationwide sensor grid to enable early detection of hazardous materials. With earlier detection, SCDF will be able to quickly dispatch resources to investigate and manage the situation. The management of an incident involving hazardous materials is time critical, as these substances pose significant risks to public health property and the environment.

We are also using technology, so that officers can respond faster and better to incidents. SPF and SCDF will be enhancing their 999 and 995 operation centres with VEEN, or Video Extension for Emergency Numbers. VEEN will allow officers in the Ops Centre to initiate a video call on the mobile phone of the 999 or 995 caller. With that, the Ops Centre will be able to see what is happening on the ground and officers arriving at the scene will be able to react quicker and better. The VEEN system will be implemented in the first quarter of 2023.

SCDF frontline officers will also be equipped with smart devices, such as smart phones, tablets and smart watches, so that they can respond better in emergencies. An example would be OMNII, or the Operational Medical Networks Informatics Integrator, jointly developed by SCDF and MOH. Launched in mid-2021, OMNII helps paramedics to make better interventions when responding to emergency medical cases through accessing a patient’s relevant medical data on the go. Paramedics can also quickly share information with the hospitals, so that the patient can receive timely assistance upon arrival.

The second area I will speak about is how we use technology to improve service delivery to the public.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, we have accelerated the digitalisation of our services to minimise physical touch points and to reach more Singaporeans safely and conveniently.

Currently, the majority of ICA’s transactional e-services see a high take-up rate of over 80%. Satisfaction rates among users are over 80%. This year, ICA will make available more digital documents. Members of the public will soon be able to apply for and access documents digitally, such as birth and death certificates, long-term visit passes and student passes. This makes these processes completely digital end-to-end, and we will no longer need to worry about losing such important documents. This also saves time spent on travelling and collecting physical documents at ICA. Identity cards and passports will remain physical documents as current legislation still requires the presentation of physical identity cards in certain settings and we need to adhere to international passport standards set out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

In time to come, these digital documents can be securely and conveniently retrieved on our mobile devices through the “MyICA Mobile” app. ICA will also be making more e-services, such as the application of identity cards, passports and extension of visit passes available on this app.

Mr Mark Chay asked how technology can assist in the safe reopening of Singapore’s borders. As international travel starts to open up, we expect the number of travellers passing through our checkpoints to increase. ICA will introduce the Automated Clearance Initiative this year to allow more eligible visitors to use automated clearance facilities, without the need for prior application.

In the longer term, most residents, long-term pass holders and visitors will be cleared through automated lanes in the passenger halls, which will be faster, more efficient and more secure.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if this will increase the immigration clearance time for Singaporeans since we will have a larger pool of travellers eligible for automated clearance. I would like to assure Members that Singaporeans will not experience longer clearance times. We can clear a traveller at the automated lane in less than half the time, compared to the manual counter. In addition, over the next three years, ICA will double the number of automated lanes at Changi Airport. All lanes can be flexibly allocated to serve specific traveller groups according to operational needs.

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked how we have used technology to facilitate rehabilitation. We have used technology to ensure our rehabilitation programmes can continue during the pandemic and keep families close to inmates. Since 2020, SPS has used videoconferencing for its rehabilitation programmes. Through the virtual family programmes, inmates were able to connect with their children, despite the pandemic. SPS also partnered Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) to facilitate virtual job placement interviews, allowing inmates to continue to access employment assistance. These virtual initiatives will be kept up to complement in-person sessions.

SPS also uses tablets to facilitate inmates’ rehabilitation with self-directed learning and engagement. Inmates connect with their families and friends through e-letters and keep up with the news. This sense of connection with their loved ones and society is essential to their rehabilitation process.

A third and important area is the use of technology to make training safer and more realistic for our officers. One example is SPF’s Live Instrumentation Training System, which does away with the need for our officers to fire live rounds during simulated tactical trainings; instead, lasers and body-worn detectors are used.

To make taser training safer for our officers, the Mobile TASER Training Target system uses computer vision technology to detect and analyse data, such as where the taser probes are targeted at, thus removing the need for conventional methods where officers wearing protective suits serve as targets.

Our officers are vested in this journey. They, too, want to have a stake in better understanding and leveraging technology. Thus, each Home Team Department has developed their own digital upskilling roadmaps to equip their officers with the relevant digital skills.

The Home Team is also using technology to train our officers to tackle cyber crime. We adopt a two-pronged approach.

First, we equip our Home Team officers with tools to detect and provide intelligence on cyber crime activities. For example, Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) developed an E-Commerce Surveillance Tool that uses AI to help enforcement officers sift through online listings of contrabands. As data mining and analysis are fully automated, this significantly reduces the enforcement efforts of contraband items from days or even weeks to a matter of hours.

Second, we train and keep our officers updated on the latest cyber crime trends. For example, SPF works with private sector organisations to train officers on technology features and technical skills to combat cyber crime.

Sir, over the next few years, technology will continue to be a cornerstone in our transformation journey to help meet the challenges of our evolving security environment.

MHA will build key capabilities to enable the delivery of our future digitalisation initiatives and accelerate innovation. HTX is developing HEIDI, or Hyperscale Enterprise Intelligent Digital Infrastructure, a dedicated cloud platform. HEIDI will enable HTX to quickly adopt and create new digital capabilities so that capacity can be scaled up quickly to meet future needs. It will also provide enhanced data security and stronger operational control compared to regular commercial cloud services. With HEIDI, the Home Team will be in a stronger position to fulfil our mission.

5.00 pm

Sir, leveraging technology to improve our capabilities will enable us to serve the public better, more efficiently and effectively. We will press on to ensure that Singapore remains a safe and secure home for all of us.

The Chairman: Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Sir, the Home Team continues to do well in keeping Singapore safe and secure. Prevention and rehabilitation play an important role in our successes.

Mr Vikram Nair asked about our efforts to identify and work with those who are at-risk of offending. Dr Shahira Abdullah asked about MHA's efforts to prevent young individuals from offending and re-offending.

The Police and the National Crime Prevention Council have been jointly organising the Delta League since 2011. We engage youths through football tournaments, workshops and e-sports to imbue a sense of teamwork, discipline and social responsibility. In 2018, we set up the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism, or NCPR, to oversee national efforts to prevent offending and re-offending and enhance the rehabilitation of offenders.

We piloted the Localised Community Network (LCN) in 2019 to provide support for children and youths who exhibit at-risk behaviours. The Youth GO! Programme (YGP) has been in place since 2012 and engages around 300 youths each month through structured activities to reduce risky behaviour, build positive relationships and life skills.

Thanks to the hard work of the agencies and our partners, we have seen the number of youth offenders decreased by 28% over the past decade.

Dr Shahira Abdullah asked about the percentage of youths who re-offend.

The two-year recidivism rate among youth offenders aged under 20 who were under the charge of the Singapore Prison Service was 26.4% for the 2019 release cohort. The three-year recidivism rate of youth offenders aged under 16 who were on MSF's Guidance Programme, Probation or Youth Homes was 14.9% for the 2016 release cohort.

We do not track if these youths' subsequent offences become more serious in nature.

Apart from upstream efforts, we also invest in rehabilitation and reintegration. Minister Shanmugam has spoken about rehabilitation in his speech.

Our rehabilitation efforts would not be effective if the community is not willing to give ex-offenders a second chance. Dr Tan Wu Meng asked how we can improve job search prospects for ex-offenders and further incentivise HR practices.

Hiring ex-offenders is one of the most symbolic acts of acceptance. Yellow Ribbon Singapore, or YRSG, has built a system of support to incentivise, recognise and empower employers to hire ex-offenders. Placement exercises are held in prison to match inmates with suitable employers prior to release.

YRSG provides Career Retention Support for ex-offenders. For up to 12 months, career coaches work with ex-offenders and their employers to set behavioural goals and resolve work issues. Later this year, YRSG will launch the Friends of Yellow Ribbon network to galvanise individuals, community groups and employers to advance second chances.

Currently, about 80% of ex-offenders assisted by YRSG are employed in lower-wage jobs. MOM will implement the Progressive Wage Mark, or PW Mark, to accredit firms that pay progressive wages. The PW Mark will uplift lower-wage workers.

Beyond employers, YRSG has put in place a community action masterplan to map out opportunities for the community to be involved and better harness the strengths and aspirations of volunteers.

Prisons partners community organisations and volunteers to provide pro-social support to ex-offenders when they are released into the community.

Under the Throughcare Volunteer Framework, or TVF, volunteers involve them in activities after their release and connect them to wider communities of support. In 2021, all 11 religious partners working with Prisons adopted the TVF. We are heartened by the strong support of prison volunteers and community partners.

On the drug front, the local drug situation remains under control. However, there are still areas of concern. Among them is the observation that there is a gradual slide towards increasingly liberal attitudes.

To better protect Singapore from the scourge of drugs, we will strengthen the three pillars of our harm prevention efforts: tough laws and robust enforcement; preventive drug education or PDE; and rehabilitation and aftercare. We intend to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to better regulate new psychoactive substances, expand PDE efforts to forge a national consensus of zero tolerance against drugs and enhance drug supervision to support former abusers in leading drug-free lives.

First, Mr Christopher de Souza asked how the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) could be made more flexible to deal with new variants of new psychoactive substances, or NPS. MHA will amend the MDA to introduce a new legislative framework to regulate NPS, based on their potential to produce a psychoactive effect. This will allow us to be more responsive to emerging forms of NPS. We will share more details in due course.

Mr Derrick Goh asked how we address the use of the digital space for dealing in drugs. CNB will continue with operations targeting trafficking and abusers who use encrypted messaging applications such as Telegram.

Second, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Derrick Goh asked how we address liberalising attitudes towards drugs and strengthen resilience for a drug-free Singapore, especially among youths. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the impact of our efforts in spreading the anti-drug message.

CNB has been leveraging social media to secure mindshare to build a drug-free Singapore. In May 2021, CNB released the short film "Down The Rabbit Hole". The film sheds light on the mercenary motivations of drug pushers and traffickers who had profited at the expense of vulnerable and addicted persons.

To involve parents and educators of youths, CNB published an information booklet on "Staying Free from New Psychoactive Substances". This booklet provides tips on identifying tell-tale signs that their children are abusing drugs and ways to help youths stay away from drugs. In fact, if you go to the CNB website, you will be able to see many resources and information.

We also engage in using social media, such as Instagram and Facebook. We proactively share information. Whenever there are arrests, we also share such photos so that we can get people aware and involved in such efforts. So, I hope you can support us and share our messages and issues that we want to proactively reach out to Singaporeans with.

CNB also organises an annual video competition to provide a platform to engage older youths interested in video production. This allows youths to articulate their understanding of the harms of drugs and promote anti-drug messages through short videos. This year, CNB will reach out to more students through pre-competition workshops and provide opportunities for collaboration with CNB to develop PDE resources for their peers.

I am heartened that a Home Team Public Perception Survey conducted in 2020 found that more than nine in 10 respondents below the age of 30 were aware of PDE efforts. We will continue to engage our people to forge a strong national consensus of zero tolerance.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked how MHA is working with the community to strengthen support for drug offenders and ex-offenders.

I had earlier spoken about efforts to support the reintegration of ex-offenders. Former drug abusers will be subjected to supervision by CNB to support them in leading drug-free lives. CNB will be enhancing its drug supervision scheme to better support the reintegration of former drug abusers.

Since 2019, CNB has been piloting Community Supervision Skills (CoSS) sessions where CNB supervision officers will check in on supervisees and assess their residual reintegration needs. If necessary, supervisees will be referred to the appropriate agencies for follow-up. I am pleased to announce that CNB will be rolling out CoSS progressively, with full implementation islandwide by March next year.

Mr Murali Pillai spoke on the mixing of ex-abusers who are reporting for supervision. Currently, there are different reporting days for youth and adult supervisees to prevent undesirable interactions and contamination. Further, supervisees are not allowed to communicate with each other during reporting and are to leave the reporting centre once they are done.

I will now speak in Malay on the supportive role played by the Malay/Muslim community in our fight against drugs.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Zhulkarnain requested an update on MHA's collaboration with the Malay/Muslim community in the fight against drugs.

In November 2021, a network comprising 26 Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs) and 11 M³@Towns was launched to strengthen collaboration and support for inmates, ex-offenders and their families. These include Malay/Muslim organisations, such as FITRAH, PERGAS and AMP, which provide intervention and outreach programmes. We will continue to support other Malay/Muslim organisations to build upon and expand the network.

The "Dadah Itu Haram" campaign has been going on for almost five years with the aim of working with the Malay/Muslim community to spread the message of living healthy, drug-free lives. Currently, we have more than 230 volunteers and advocates, along with 340 partners comprising various Malay/Muslim organisations, community groups, special interest groups, barber shops and eateries, participating in the campaign. Their efforts ensured that the "Dadah Itu Haram" campaign reached out to over 650,000 participants through more than 140 co-created events. To ensure continued participation during COVID-19, CNB conducted more than 20 virtual and hybrid events in 2021.

In 2021, all 71 mosques across Singapore participated in the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking for the first time by displaying "Dadah Itu Haram" signages and banners in the mosque compounds. This event included a Friday sermon specially prepared by MUIS on the importance of prohibiting drug abuse and to raise awareness about the dangers of drugs.

The latest survey on the "Dadah Itu Haram" campaign is very encouraging. It shows the community’s strong support towards this campaign and there is encouraging evidence of this campaign’s success in spreading the anti-drug message to the target group within the Malay/Muslim community. We are studying the “Dadah Itu Haram” campaign to identify the learning points that can be used to increase our reach to other groups. We thank the community for their support in the war against drugs, and we look forward to more collaborations.

(In English): Sir, I will now address Dr Tan Wu Meng's question on ensuring proper handover of medical care for ex-offenders.

In general, ex-offenders who need further follow-up after release will be referred to Changi General Hospital's specialist clinics for continuity of care. Prisons is exploring with SingHealth on facilitating follow-up appointments at other public healthcare institutions which are closer to the ex-offender's home.

Before I end, I want to highlight a special group of people, namely, our National Servicemen, or NSmen. Our NSmen serve alongside our regular officers with the same dedication and commitment. Mr Desmond Choo asked about our plans to enhance the NS experience and Mr Patrick Tay asked what more could be done for our Home Team NSmen.

SPF and SCDF will be adjusting operational requirements so that more NSmen, especially those with slight physical or medical limitations, can take on more frontline roles. We are also looking at ways of improving the touchpoints for our NSmen for a more positive NS experience.

5.15 pm

This year, we commemorate 55 years of National Service. It is timely that we will be officially opening the HomeTeamNS@Bedok Clubhouse at the end of the year.

Sir, the Home Team will continue to work together with the community to keep Singapore safe and secure, and free from the harms of drugs.

The Chairman: Minister of State Desmond Tan.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Chairman, I will elaborate on three areas that our Home Team will be focusing on, in our partnership with the community and the industry stakeholders in the year 2022 to keep Singapore safe and secure. These three areas are crime prevention, combatting scams and anti-terrorism.

First, we will continue to work with the community to prevent crime. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the Police’s partnerships with the community to create safer neighbourhoods.

In 2021, the Police launched the Community Watch Scheme (CWS) to build a volunteer network to fight crime. This scheme actually integrates the existing groups, such as the Neighbourhood Watch Zone (NWZ), Vehicles on Watch and Riders on Watch, into an overall community partnership programme. Today, it stands at a 5,000 membership.

Some members have also gone beyond and to help to patrol the streets. Some do so on Citizens on Patrol (COP) by donning a vest. Others go even further to don a uniform, under the Volunteer Special Constabulary scheme. These efforts have helped make our neighbourhoods and communities safer.

One example I would like to highlight is Mr Pragash s/o Kulasagar, who has volunteered via the COP scheme for 20 years. In February 2018, while on patrol, Mr Pragash and his team were approached by a couple who shared that their domestic helper had been molested outside the lift of their flat. Mr Pragash and his team used the description provided and were able to narrow down the identity of culprit and helped solved the crime.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked how the Government will tackle public disorder and disamenities brought about by errant debt collection activities. We have listened carefully to the feedback from the ground. We intend to put in place a new debt collection regulatory framework to address this issue. This framework will involve a licensing regime and introduce restrictions on what debt collectors can or cannot do.

Second, on our whole-of-society approach to tackling scams and cheating cases. Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Mark Chay asked how the Government will combat the scourge of scams together with our stakeholders.

In February, I made a Ministerial Statement on two aspects of our approach: (a) enforcement; and (b) public education. Let me just highlight some of the key points from there.

I mentioned about the Anti-Scam Centre, which continues to be effective and will continue to be organised for better effectiveness. I talked about working with transnational agencies and jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies to continue to be more effective as many of these crimes were transboundary. And finally, we will continue to work with the telcos as well as the banks to secure our network and to ensure that our funds are secure in the transactions.

Some of the measures, including blocking of SMSes, phone calls as well as websites, will be introduced in the year ahead.

We will continue to explore other strategies to combat scams. For example, later this year, MHA will be introducing the E-Commerce Marketplace Transaction Safety Ratings. This rating will help consumers understand the safety features offered by different e-marketplaces, so that they can make an informed choice on where or how they are going to do their online shopping.

We are also working with agencies to develop a framework that will help us tackle scams as well as a broader suite of criminal activity online, such as child pornography, terrorism and content inciting violence in our communities. Ultimately, we want a safer online environment for all users. We will engage the relevant stakeholders on our proposals very soon. This is in response to Mr Desmond Choo as well as Mr Mark Chay’s questions on how we are going to deal with harmful online content and virtual crimes.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) is adequately resourced and whether CAD can tap on the private sector to enhance its operations.

As I mentioned earlier, resourcing across the SPF – that includes CAD – is indeed, very stretched. We will have to discuss with MOF on how we can increase our manpower in the Police Force to enable our forces to cope better. We regularly review the salaries of our CAD officers to make sure that they are kept competitive and are able to be adjusted should market forces also move.

Even so, this has not prevented CAD from being an effective unit. CAD has also proactively engaged industry stakeholders to streamline its operations. For example, in 2021, CAD worked with trusted industry partners to disrupt an extensive network of shell companies potentially used for money laundering. This partnership allowed CAD to intercept over US$33 million in criminal proceeds.

With regard to the Member’s suggestion of a whistle-blowing legislation, today, our current laws already protect the identities of informants for organised crime and money laundering offences. At the same time, we take a stern view of such crimes and so our laws do not protect them from prosecution or to provide further incentives. While we can understand that whistle-blowing will encourage more people to step forward to help detection, there are also other considerations that we need to consider. Including how it may create a moral hazard or lead to frivolous reporting, or there may be some cases where the whistle-blower themselves are complicit in the crime. These consideration will have to be weighed against some of the benefits that the Member talked about.

Mr Don Wee asked how we will address “money mules” – individuals who receive and transfer tainted funds as part of a trans-national syndicated money-laundering process.

Today, a large proportion of investigations into money mules do not result in prosecutions, due to the inherent difficulties in proving the money mule’s intent to participate in moving monies for scam syndicates.

To address this issue, MHA will be making amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act or CDSA, to allow money laundering offences to be made out at lower levels of culpability. These amendments are currently scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2022.

Next, let me touch on our approach to anti-terrorism.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the Government's partnership to prevent terrorism and strengthen our response. Key to Singapore’s counter-terrorism strategy is working closely with global security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to foil terror attacks. For example, in 2016, ISD worked closely with our Indonesian counterparts to thwart a plot by the pro-Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group that targeted Marina Bay Sands.

The Government also works closely with our community and religious leaders to address the roots of the ideology upstream. We are also ramping up our community response and mobilisation capabilities against terror attacks through the SGSecure Movement.

Mr Christopher de Souza also asked how we rehabilitate radicalised individuals. Today, we have extensive partnerships with organisations, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) and the Inter-Agency Aftercare Group. To-date, over 80% of those that are detained for terrorism-related conduct have been released from detention. Most of them are gainfully employed and some are pursuing their education. They have good social support and remain resilient against radical influences.

I would like to cite a quick example of a former ISIS supporter “Daniel”, not his real name, who was only 17 years old when he was detained in January 2020. Following extensive engagement by rehabilitation stakeholders, “Daniel” has renounced his support for ISIS and his radical ideologies. While in detention, he received weekly tutoring from RRG members who are also MOE-trained teachers, to prepare him for his GCE “N” level exams. He did very well in his exams, and his achievements have strengthened his resolve to change for the better. “Daniel” has since been released from detention in January 2022 and is now furthering his education.

Our partners in the security industry also play a critical role in keeping Singapore safe from terrorism. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about the Government's role in helping this sector to be better equipped to play this role. Our approach is always multi-pronged.

To continue raising the professionalism of our security industry partners, with effect from 1 July 2023, all security officers must complete the "Recognise Terrorist Threats" (RTT) training before they can be deployed at any site.

We will also uplift wages for all security officers, including women, whom we always try to recruit. The PWM recommendations will provide a six-year schedule of sustained wage increases for more than 40,000 resident security officers.

Since May 2020, all Government Procurement Entities are required to adopt outcome-based contracts (OBCs) for their security services and we will move towards 100% adoption of OBCs in the coming years. We hope more private sector entities will follow suit. Mr Chairman, to conclude, let me speak a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Chairman, it is the responsibility of every Singaporean to protect Singapore.

Although we are doing our best to plan and prevent crime, it is hard to totally prevent it from happening. We must take a three-pronged approach to curbing crime. First, we continue to strengthen cooperation with community partners to provide timely assistance to individuals and families. Second, strengthen the awareness of fraud prevention, so that scammers do not take advantage of it. Third, we must heighten vigilance against extreme anti-social attitudes and practices that create division.

In the coming year, the Government and the Home Team hope to continue to work with Singaporeans to prevent and combat crime. It is important to be vigilant and report suspicious persons or show concern for our neighbours. Each of us can contribute to crime prevention and work together to build a Singapore where we can all live and work in peace and contentment.

(In English): Mr Chairman, as the security environment continues to evolve, the Home Team will continue to work with our community to build a safer and more secure Singapore.

The Chairman: Clarifications? Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir, and I thank the Law and Home Affairs Minister Mr Shanmugam for his lengthy comments on my two minute cut speech. I would like to just respond to some of his points and pose some clarifications.

He mentioned that he was not surprised at my suggestion of a judicial check on the administration of punishments in prison. I am equally unsurprised at his disagreement with that. He referred to New Zealand and he pointed out many problems that New Zealand has recently been grappling with. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had cited another country, he would point out problems with that country as well.

My question would be that if instituting an independent organisation with investigative powers against the executive government, such as an ombudsman, is such a bad idea, why are so many countries doing that? I made a long speech, which I do not intend to and I cannot anyway repeat, in September 2020 when I gave detailed arguments for an ombudsman, I addressed the objections to the idea, one by one. I talked about the countries that have that. Many countries do incorporate this institution. And if you were to go to opinion leaders, and if you were to conduct public opinion polls in those countries, I am not at all sure that the majority of people would say that, "Well, this is a bad thing, let us remove this institution and then things will get better". So that is the first point I wanted to put across.

I think, fundamentally, the main argument for this ombudsman comes down to the fact that, currently, law enforcement institutions sit on the organisation chart within the executive Government, they are within that command and control hierarchy at the end of the day. An ombudsman would report to Parliament in the manner that I outlined in that earlier speech and that means that it sits fundamentally in a different place organisationally. So, when it investigates alleged abuses, it is seen to be an investigation coming from a different part of the Government.

I think being seen to be that, to do that, has advantages in terms of vertical accountability, that is felt by the society and that has advantages in terms of the strength and solidarity of our polity. I would say that there are tangible advantages to be gained from that.

It is difficult to speak of practical benefits that would come from instituting this proposal because it is hypothetical, of course. We have never had —

The Chairman: Mr Perera, if we can keep it to clarifications and questions; if we can.

Mr Leon Perera: Okay. I will just wrap up in the next one minute.

Because I would not know what sort of cases would be referred to that, how those cases will be dealt with. What I can say is that in terms of the perception of legitimacy, I think there is a benefit there. The Minister mentioned various practical issues that could come about, for example, do we want to duplicate resources. I mean, there are practical solutions to that. You could design an office ombudsman to address that. For example, investigations could be directed by the office but they could seek resources from other agencies.

But I think for the sake of length, I will leave it at that.

5.30 pm

The Chairman : Minister Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: In a way, I am not sure that we are that far apart because I had anticipated this point, which is why I said that there are two possible ways.

One is you replicate the entire resources, that means you have various parts of the Government machinery outside which makes no sense. The alternate is the ombudsman uses the Government machinery. I think Mr Perera overlooks – if he uses the machinery, those machineries sit within the Government. They sit within various Ministries. Then that is the point I make in my earlier response to him.

And today, the very same agencies can report directly to the President and I have explained how that is so. So, I do not understand what the argument is. Maybe Mr Perera has not understood the constitutional structure and how the CPIB can go direct to the President.

The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, I did not file a cut for this Ministry but in view of some of the earlier remarks made by the Minister, I have two clarifications.

Both pertain to the surveys. I just need to be sure that both were surveys; the first one covered the mandatory death penalty. If I heard the Minister right, he said the Ministry is studying the results. And then, thereafter, Minister went on to say that in the case, for example, for intentional murder, 81% approved of the mandatory death penalty. I think there were three other statistics that he revealed in that part. Can I just confirm then what is the Ministry studying with regard to the mandatory death penalty for this particular survey?

The second question pertains to the first survey the Minister referred to, which covered foreigners in countries, I understand the Minister said where some of these drug offenders originate from. Can I confirm that that survey would be made public and not for its own sake but at least people can understand the argument vis-a-vis deterrence quite squarely and also understand the structure of the survey itself?

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for both those questions. The first question relates to a survey amongst Singapore residents. We did one in 2019. We do this regularly. And then 2021, on my instructions, a part of the survey specifically focused on mandatory death penalty. Because people may have differing views on death penalty and mandatory death penalty. And the figures I gave were for mandatory death penalty.

But having said that, I have to put a caveat, as I said, there is a statistical methodology and this survey has been completed fairly recently, the results are still being analysed. I have been given these figures with a reasonable degree of confidence. When it is finalised, we will make it available, we will make it public, as we have made public previous surveys. There is no issue about that. It will just take the appropriate time and we will release it.

Second, the survey that Mr Singh spoke about or referred to my speech, where I spoke about a survey in the region where not a small number, well, many of our drug traffickers come from. The results are known to us. I think it is important and I have given instructions for it to be made public in some form, in a way that will not prejudice Singapore's public interest and foreign policy interest.

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have three clarifications.

The first clarification has to do with the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim had mentioned that in order to make the Misuse of Drugs Act more flexible, in order to catch quickly and swiftly new psychoactive substances that come onto the market, they are looking at a framework that concentrates on the effect of the drug.

I think that is a good move, but I would like to confirm with him that even if we were to go in that direction, which would make the MDA swifter, we would still retain the First Schedule which lists all the controlled drugs. And if you possess, deal in or consume any of those controlled drugs in the First Schedule, you will still be up for an offence. So, the deterrent effect on the controlled drugs remains. That is my first clarification.

My second clarification arises out of what Minister of State Desmond Tan said on anti-terror capabilities. My question to him and my cut were really directed at what intelligence cooperation we can have across jurisdictions to ensure that there is information sharing to pre-empt a terror attack from happening in Singapore. And I had in mind collaborations with Interpol. Would he be able to confirm that MHA does work with organisations like Interpol to create a good intelligence environment to deter terrorist threats?

The third clarification, Sir, really arises from the Minister's position on the death penalty. First, I want to say that it takes a lot of courage to come out and say that, because of the wave of liberal attitudes towards consumption of drugs in the globe today and in the region. And I want to say that as a lawmaker, it is one of the toughest decisions that I have to make for my country whenever the Misuse of Drugs act comes up, if not the toughest and I have searched my conscience and I am fully in favour of the retention of the death penalty. Why? Because 15 grammes of diamorphine – heroin – feed 180 drug abusers a week.

The Chairman: Mr de Souza, can we just keep it to the question and clarification?

Mr Christopher de Souza: Yes. So, my position here is that in preserving the death penalty, would MHA also share statistics about the effect of the drug and how it creates cross-generational detriment? A hundred and eighty families are one whole HDB block. And share the empirical evidence of how the death penalty does, in fact, deter?

So, I just want to place on record my thanks to the Minister for going deep into a very sensitive topic notwithstanding the forces at work in the opposite direction.

The Chairman: Mr de Souza, if you can just wrap up. Thank you.

Mr Christopher de Souza: That is what I wanted to say and I say that as a matter of principle and conviction.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Yes, indeed, we will retain the First Schedule of the MDA.

The Chairman: Mr Desmond Tan.

Mr Desmond Tan: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a quick response to Mr Christopher de Souza. In my response, I did mention that the Police as well as our intelligence agencies do work very closely with our regional, as well as extra-regional partners from the other countries to ensure there is exchange of information, there is capacity building and there are also joint operations, if necessary. So, this is something that we have been working on and that includes our partnership with Interpol. I have cited examples where we have also worked with Indonesian agencies some time ago to thwart the plot that was planned against Marina Bay Sands.

The Chairman: Mr Murali Pillai, would you like to withdraw your amendment, please?

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Chairman, Sir, with your leave, I would like to convey my appreciation to three groups of people.

First, the hon Members for filing 40 cuts which led to a very involved debate on issues that affect MHA.

Second, to the two hon Ministers and the two hon Ministers of State for their comprehensive responses. And I cannot remember another COS debate with slides and videos, and for hon Members who have seen the videos, it would probably forever be etched in their memories the pernicious effects of drugs, especially on those who are voiceless. So, my thanks to them.

Last but not least, on behalf of Members who spoke, I would like to record our appreciation to the Home Team officers who work every day to keep Singapore safe and secure. With that, may I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $6,897,464,400 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,306,450,600 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.