Update on Police Inquiry into Suntec City Brawl where Foreigners Involved Jumped Bail

Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will provide an update on the police inquiry into the case in which foreigners involved in a brawl at Suntec City in April 2010 jumped bail after being charged.

Mr S Iswaran (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo informed the House that the Police was conducting an internal inquiry to establish the full facts of how the Suntec case was handled and whether there were any lapses or negligence on the part of the officers handling the case.

Police has now completed its internal inquiry, and has charged the Investigation Officer who handled the case with neglect of duty. A Letter of Warning has also been issued to his supervisor.

I would also point out that the lapse was due to the error of an individual rather than to any systemic shortcomings. In general, the framework for the management of investigations is sound. The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) require supervisors to conduct regular checks on investigations and give directions, as appropriate, to ensure that there is progress. If there is error or neglect in following established processes, the responsible officers will be taken to task, as is evident in this case.

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): I thank the Second Minister for the update and clarification. I am heartened to know that the Ministry is taking a very serious view from a systemic point of view to make sure that the officers discharge their duties responsibly and seriously. I would like to ask a supplementary question, which is also related to the first Parliamentary Question that hon Member, Mr David Ong, had asked.

Using this case as an illustration, in light of foreigners who have caused hurt to Singaporeans and who have absconded and jumped bail, would the Ministry consider putting in as an SOP a mandatory impounding of passports, so that the accused, though they have not been proven to be guilty, will remain in Singapore until the judgement is made? Impounding their passports would not restrict their freedom of movement in Singapore, but it would ensure that when the Courts need them, or when the judgement is made, they are in Singapore to receive the judgement. This is important in safeguarding the safety and interests of Singaporeans who might have, inadvertently, become victims of such unfortunate crime.

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her question. I want to go back to the first point that I made and the response to the previous question. First of all, our laws are quite clear – they are impartial in the way they apply to all individuals who are within our jurisdiction. Regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator of the crime or the nationality of the victim, our laws apply equally. I want to stress that.

Page: 377

The second point I want to make is that foreigners are not over represented in our crime statistics. Whilst there may be some isolated cases which are highlighted, the fact remains that it is generally not disproportionate. What we need to do is to make sure that our systems and processes are well equipped to deal with the challenges.

The Member suggested the idea that if a foreigner is charged – not convicted but charged – with an offence that we make it mandatory to impound their passports. As I have said, this is really a decision that we should leave to the Courts, and not make it mandatory because there are so many considerations here. The nature of the crime, the gravity of the impact, the nature of the individuals' own ties to Singapore and, most importantly and fundamentally, we have to strike that balance between his or her right to freedom to move, especially before he or she is judged or found to be guilty. That trade-off and that judgement have to be left to the courts. What the Police and prosecution do is to do their best to make sure all the facts are produced before the courts so that the courts can make an informed decision.

Having said that, I understand the Member's intent behind this, which is to ensure that we have a more robust regime. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we are reviewing the processes, as we do from time to time. We will see what else can be done to strengthen the framework and the procedures.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, one supplementary question for the Second Minister. He mentioned in his answer that the Police have decided to charge a police officer in charge of this case with neglect. I wonder whether he is able to elaborate at this stage and give us details of what the officer was alleged to have neglected to do.

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the matter is before the Police Disciplinary Board, I would rather not go into the details. It would suffice to say that there are norms and expectations in terms of duty and what the officer needs to do as part of his investigative duties. In this instance, he was found, through the Police process, to have been negligent.