Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, there are 33 operative clauses in this Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I will highlight only the key amendments.

Clauses 2 to 6 provide the procedure for the Rules of Court to prescribe a process for governing appeals from certain statutory tribunals.

These appeals now proceed as district court appeals, and with the amendments, these appeals will proceed by way of originating summonses, which is a simpler procedure.

The tribunals affected are:

(a) the Commissioner of Labour, in respect of his decisions under the Employment Act and the Work Injury Compensation Act;

(b) the Goods and Services Tax Board of Review;

(c) the Income Tax Board of Review; and

(d) the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents.

Page: 1062

Clauses 7 to 10 deal with quorums required for meetings of certain statutory boards, to bring them in line with the quorums required for other statutory boards.

The revised quorums require one-third of the total number of members on the board, or the current quorum, whichever is higher. The affected statutory boards are:

(a) the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority;

(b) the Energy Market Authority of Singapore;

(c) the Singapore Medical Council; and

(d) the National Environment Agency.

Clause 15 amends the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act. It provides for information to be supplied under the Act or the Chemical Weapons Convention to be disclosed for national security purposes.

Next, clause 19, relating to the Coroners Act 2010, enhances the powers of forensic pathologists. It enables them to more effectively investigate causes of death.

Forensic pathologists will now be able to obtain information, data, relating to the medical treatment or care of the deceased which are in the possession of a medical or healthcare professional.

They will also be able to obtain medical records of the deceased from the National Registry of Diseases.

Clause 20 relates to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. The main amendment is to section 39, to clarify that the obligation to report suspicious transactions includes attempted transactions.

This amendment arises from Recommendation 13 of the Financial Action Task Force, that is an intergovernmental body which develops and promotes policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

The amendment to section 39 will put beyond doubt Singapore's full compliance with Recommendation 13.

Next, clause 21. This amends the Criminal Procedure Code of 2010, and there are two main amendments.

The first relates to the court's discretion to grant bail.

The amendments provide for the courts to grant bail in all cases except those where the accused person is charged with an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment. In such cases where the accused person is charged with an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment and also an alternative punishment, the court can also grant bail if the accused person is to be tried in the Subordinate Courts.

The second main amendment refines the Subordinate Courts' power to remand accused persons.

Currently, a Magistrate can only remand an accused person for eight days at a time. There is no similar limit for the District Courts.

Page: 1063

We have received feedback from the Law Society that this does not work well.

An accused person who is in remand pending trial must be brought before the court every eight days even though there are no updates to give to the court.

This affects the Magistrates' Arrest Cases, as well as committal and transmission cases, which are mentioned before Magistrates.

With the amendments, there will no longer be a distinction between a Magistrate's Court and a District Court with regard to remand.

The distinction will be between cases where investigations are ongoing, and cases where investigations are complete.

Where investigations are on-going, an accused person can only be remanded for eight days at a time and must be brought before the court again if further remand is sought.

This ensures that investigations are completed in good time and, where applicable, bail can be offered as soon as possible after investigations are complete.

Once investigations are complete, the accused person will be remanded pending the resolution of his case and if he is refused bail or cannot raise bail. At this point, no reason to require that he can be remanded only for eight days at a time.

Sections 174 and 238 are to be amended accordingly, and that will allow more efficient management of cases by the courts.

Clause 23 amends the Land Acquisition Act. It is to primarily change the mode by which interested persons are notified in relation to land acquisitions.

Section 8(1) requires the Collector to notify interested persons by physically posting notices at or near the land to be acquired. The feedback is that owners prefer not to have this process.

So, we propose replacing that mode with a new requirement to publish notices in at least four daily local newspapers in each of the four official languages, which is more effective and reaches a larger audience.

This, of course, is in addition to other existing means of notification, which include notification in the Gazette, and sending registered letters to known interested parties.

Clause 26 clarifies and updates the provisions of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act.

First, the definition of "maintenance order" is expanded to allow the reciprocal enforcement of lump sum maintenance orders, in addition to orders for periodic payments, and that would better reflect the practice of local and foreign courts in awarding maintenance.

The other amendments refine the scope and operation of the Act so as to better reflect how it operates in practice.

One example is the removal of a provision that deems an applicant for maintenance as a legal custodian of the child.

Page: 1064

This deeming provision was originally taken from the United Kingdom. It is irrelevant in our local context because legal custody is not a pre-requisite for ordering maintenance.

Clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Public Trustee Act, as well as the Trustees Act.

They clarify that the Public Trustee, and trustees generally, can make specific investments that they were empowered to make before section 4(1) of the Trustees Act was amended in 2004. These amendments conferred upon the trustees a broad general power of investment.

Finally, there are various housekeeping amendments to various Acts, to improve the readability and administration of existing provisions and to repeal obsolete provisions. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.09 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while the Bill amends many Acts, I will focus on two sets of amendments - those affecting the Criminal Procedure Code, and those affecting the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

First, the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC. Clause 21(a) to (c) of the Bill amends the CPC with respect to bail.

Clause 21(b) of the Bill amends section 95(1)(a) to allow a court to consider whether to release an arrested person on bail in all cases except where the accused is charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The provision, when amended, will allow a court to grant bail where an accused is charged with an offence which attracts imprisonment of 20 years or more, which the current provision does not allow. I support this amendment, as it will give a court the discretion to decide whether to grant bail in such cases. The court can then apply the usual principles in deciding whether to grant or deny bail to an accused, looking at factors, such as the seriousness of the offence and punishment, the risk of the accused absconding and the risk of further offences being committed while he is on bail.

This amendment in clause 21(b) also rectifies an issue which recently arose in the case of Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v PP [ 2011] 4 SLR 868. There, the prosecution and the defence had argued that the wording of the existing section 95(1)(a) was capable of two different interpretations, as the term "20 years or more" was ambiguous. In any event, the problematic clause will now be deleted.

Sir, since we are discussing section 95, there has been an issue surrounding this section which would be good to clarify in this debate.

Section 95(1) restricts the court in granting bail in three situations: firstly, where the accused is charged with an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment; secondly, where he is a proven flight risk and the court believes he will continue to be so; and, thirdly, where he is arrested or taken into custody under warrants issued under the Extradition Act.

The issue of whether these restrictions under section 95(1) apply to only the Subordinate Courts or to the High Court as well arose in Mohamed Hisham's case. This is because there is an unqualified provision in section 97(1) of the CPC which allows the High Court to grant bail to any accused before it, or release him on personal bond, or to vary the amount or conditions of bail or bond required by a police officer or a Subordinate Court, as it thinks fit.

Page: 1065

In Mohamed Hisham's case, even the Deputy Public Prosecutors appeared to accept that the High Court's power to grant or vary bail under section 97 was not fettered by section 95. This view was accepted by the High Court in Mohamed Hisham's case. However, it was noted that there had been an earlier, conflicting High Court decision in S Selvamsylvester v PP [2005] 4 SLR 409 which held that the High Court's power to grant bail was subject to the restrictions in the equivalent sections of the former CPC.

As the High Court appears to be grappling with what Parliament's intention is in enacting the bail provisions under the old and new CPC, could this Bill have included an amendment to clarify the position once and for all? Or would Minister assist at least to clarify what Parliament's intention is on this issue?

Sir, now I move to amendments concerning the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). Under clause 28 of the Bill, the Commissioner of Police may authorise any person or class of persons to possess truncheons which are batons, handcuffs or specified weapons or equipment in a public place if the Commissioner deems it necessary and appropriate.

This amendment already widens the worrying section 22A of the Act which allows the Commissioner to authorise persons in the private security industry to carry such items in public. The existing section 22A was inserted in August 2007 and, at that Parliamentary debate, I raised my concern about giving private security personnel such items, when they did not have police powers nor received the same training. Some of these items are meant for use in physical confrontations with members of the public. As security officers generally have only citizen's powers which are limited, the risk of use of excessive force will arise. Should security officers become overzealous, or even in good faith act or cause injury to the public, will the citizen be left simply to sue the individual security officer and his employer? In other countries, the accountability of private security officers for wrongful acts has been a big issue, and it is a matter of time I feel before this surfaces here.

Now, clause 28 proposes to widen the provision even further. The amendment will allow the Commissioner of Police to include any person or class of persons to carry truncheons, handcuffs or specified weapons and equipment.

This new provision raises even more concerns. I would like the Minister to clarify which categories of people the Commissioner has in mind for this provision and what safeguards are in place to protect the public against excessive force or abuse.

6.15 pm

Mrs Lina Chiam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I draw the attention of this House to the Bankruptcy Act which clause 13 of this Bill seeks to amend. This clause makes changes to the adjournment of bankruptcy cases in Court and to bankruptcy applications. I have two questions for the Minister.

Firstly, can the Minister provide us with the number of bankrupt individuals sent for debt restructuring schemes against the number of those who are discharged in the past year? What I would like to know is whether the numbers of bankrupt individuals are increasing or dropping, or if the majority of them are simply sent for debt restructuring schemes.

Secondly, I am reminded of a recent case that was reported in December 2011, in which the bankruptcy orders for three former directors of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) – Richard Yong, Matilda Chua and the late Loo Say San – were annulled. This has not been sufficiently examined by the media. Would the Minister give details of this case and an account of the annulment of the bankruptcy orders for these ex-directors of the NKF? I am sure Singaporeans would like to know more about bankruptcy laws in Singapore and how they have been applied to major cases like the NKF saga of 2006.

Page: 1066

6.16 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, if I may deal with Mrs Chiam's questions first. As to the precise numbers which are sent for debt restructuring versus bankruptcy, I am afraid you should file a Parliamentary Question and then I can get the data out. Likewise, the reasons why bankrupts get discharged from bankruptcy, the Act sets out the requirements before one can get a discharge or annulment, and those conditions have to be satisfied objectively before you can get the orders. So if the Member wishes to know precisely what happened in those cases – because I do not track every single case of bankruptcy or reasons for annulment, insofar as the law would allow, and I would need to check that – if the Member would file a question we will check that and we will provide the answer.

As regards the two points made by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, I think the question on bail and sections 95, 97, is a valid one. It was considered recently last year in Hisham's case. The High Court held that its power to grant or vary bail under section 97(1) would be redundant if it were qualified by other provisions, specifically section 95(1). And I think the statement is very clear, it was directly on point in contrast to the earlier case which I think was decided in 2005. And our view is that the statutory language is clear, the judgement is clear, and the latest decision sets out the law. Nevertheless, I thank the Member for raising it, allowing me to clarify that the discretion is unfettered, and if the issue arises again, we will certainly amend, to put that beyond doubt.

On the second concern on the power of the Commissioner of Police (CP) to authorise the carrying, possession, and so on, of truncheons, handcuffs. Ms Lim's point, and again it is a valid point, is about really the abuse of such powers. A number of our laws provide for law enforcement officers to carry such equipment needed for their work. For example, of course, the Police Force Act, Immigration Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, including the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). The present amendment supplements those provisions by giving the CP the general power to authorise the carrying and possession and control of these equipment. But before he gives any authorisation, the Commissioner must be satisfied that it is necessary in the circumstances and appropriate for the function to be given. And authorisations would be granted to law enforcement officers who need to carry or possess the relevant equipment in the course of their work. And that authorisation will have to be stringently assessed; conditions will be imposed on authorised persons, including proper training for the use of the equipment; limits on where, when and the purposes for which the equipment can be used; proper safekeeping and issuance of the equipment; and the type and specifications of the equipment. And the person who breaches the condition will be acting outside his authority to carry, possess, control or use the equipment. If he does so in a public place, meaning if he acts contrary to the authorisation in public place, that would be a criminal offence. And if there is an unauthorised use of force, that may disclose further offences. And those acts will be seriously investigated, any abuse of powers will be disciplined or prosecuted, and their authorisations will also, of course, be revoked. So I thank the Member for raising the question and allowing me to set out the framework within which these powers can be exercised.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Two clarifications for the Minister. The Minister mentioned in response that, for the MOA amendments, it is envisaged that the Commissioner of Police (CP) would be authorising law enforcement officers to carry such items. But the existing provision actually foresees people from the private sector doing that. The existing section 22(a) talks about private security. I would like the Minister to clarify whether there are going be, besides private security, other people from the private sector within CP's radar, for such authorisation. Secondly, – it is a suggestion – I wonder if the Ministry has considered that for these private sector people, whether there should be additional insurance against public liability taken out to protect possible members of the public who may need to lodge civil claims for compensation, at least to ensure that their claims would be met.

Page: 1067

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. I think I will have to answer both questions on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs. My understanding is that it is not envisaged that persons other than private security industry professionals are intended to be the beneficiaries of the exercise of these powers. If there is a further clarification on that, I would certainly come back. That is my understanding of the current position. And on the point about insurance: I think it is a fair point that if they have these powers and there could be potential victims, albeit they will be acting ultra vires and illegally, nevertheless, I think insurance is a factor that the Commissioner should take into account before giving such authorisation. I accept that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [ Mr K Shanmugam ].

Bill considered in Committee.

The Chairman: The citation year "2011" will be changed to "2012", as indicated in the Order Paper supplement.

Clauses 1 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 –

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, in page 19, line 28, after "(8)(a)", to insert ", (b)". Sir, this is to correct a minor drafting omission.

Clause 24 , as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 34 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendment; read a Third time and passed.