HOSTAGE-TAKING BILL

HOSTAGE-TAKING BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

3.03 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Column: 894

Sir, this Bill, when passed, will give effect to the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. This Convention is part of a corpus of 13 universal conventions and protocols against terrorism, developed under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialised agencies.

Sir, the underlying aim of the Convention is to ensure that perpetrators of hostage-taking are brought to justice. The Convention enables us to put in place the necessary mechanisms with which to secure the cooperation of other States Parties. There will then be a legal framework for international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradiction of people who engage in acts of hostage-taking by establishing a system of universal jurisdiction to punish this crime. This is especially important, given that such crime are often transnational in nature and, consequently, effective prosecution and enforcement will require international efforts. No single country, government or agency can fight such crimes alone. Being a party to the Convention will provide Singapore with another effective means of dealing with the multi-faceted and ever-evolving terrorist threat, and facilitate international cooperation against terrorism.

Hostage-taking offences

I will now touch on the key provisions in this Bill.

The Convention requires states to introduce national legislation to criminalise hostage-taking offences. While section 364A of the Penal Code can largely be used for offences covered by the Convention, it does not sufficiently give effect to the Convention. In its current form, section 364A of the Penal Code does not expressly cover offences against governments of another state and international inter-governmental organisations.

Column: 895

The wording of the section also suggests that it applies only when there is an intention on the part of the kidnapper to move the victim from one place to another, ie, the mere detention of a person in-situ would not trigger it. This is a technical anomaly which this Bill seeks to address. In addition, the Penal Code does not provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction over hostage-taking offences. Hence, section 364A of the Penal Code will be repealed with the enactment of the Hostage-Taking Act.

Clause 3 of the Bill makes it an offence to seize or detain any person and to threaten to kill, injure or continue to detain him, unless a third party does or abstain from doing any act. The third party may be the Singapore Government, the government of another State, an international inter-governmental organisation, or any other person.

Upon conviction, a person found guilty of a hostage-taking offence against the Government, the government of another State or an international inter-governmental organisation will be liable to be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. A person found guilty of a hostage-taking offence against any other person will be liable upon conviction to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of up to 15 years. In both cases of punishment with imprisonment, the person shall also be liable to be fined or caning. The severity of the penalty imposed reflects the gravity of these offences and is intended to serve as a deterrent.

Extraterritoriality

Clause 4 of the Bill provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction over hostage-taking offences. Any person who commits an act outside Singapore, which if committed in Singapore would constitute

Column: 896

a hostage-taking offence, will be deemed to have committed the act here. If taken into custody in Singapore, the person will be charged, tried and punished accordingly.

Withholding information

In relation to a hostage-taking offence, early intervention is critical. Clause 5 of the Bill requires any person who has information that can prevent the commission of a hostage-taking offence, or which is useful to secure the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a perpetrator of a hostage-taking offence, to come forward and provide information to the authorities.

While it is not an obligation under the Convention for Singapore to criminalise the act of withholding information on hostage-taking, anyone who possesses such information should logically disclose it, given the possible grave consequences of the offence, if committed. We included the same provision when we enacted the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act in 2003, and the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act in 2007. Hence, the insertion of this provision in the Hostage-Taking Bill is precedented and is a way to deal effectively with hostage-taking offences.

There are adequate safeguards for a person who provides the information in good faith. He will be protected against any civil or criminal proceedings. Conversely, failure to disclose such information will render a person liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both.

Powers to freeze bank account, to order inspection of customer information, and to obtain information

Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill provide the Public Prosecutor with the powers to make orders to prevent the payment of

Column: 897

ransom money and to investigate or prosecute offences under the Bill. Specifically, clause 6 empowers the Public Prosecutor to order the freezing of a bank account, if he is satisfied that money for paying a ransom is likely to be paid out of it. The Government does not encourage the payment of ransom money to hostage-takers. Ransom payment does not guarantee the safety of hostages and may even have an adverse effect of encouraging hostage-taking activities. To deter potential hostage-takers, the payment of ransom money is made difficult so that there will be no certainty of gain for the hostage-takers. Failure of a bank to comply with an order under this clause will render it liable to a fine of up to $20,000.

Clause 7 empowers the Public Prosecutor to authorise a police officer to inspect any book, account or other document kept by a bank if he considers that any evidence of the commission of an offence under the Bill is likely to be found in the document. Under clause 8 of the Bill, the Public Prosecutor is empowered to obtain information for the purpose of any investigation or proceedings for an offence under the Bill. These provisions have been included to facilitate investigations into the offences under this Bill. A failure to comply with the Public Prosecutor's orders in these aspects, or providing false information in purported compliance with an order to provide information, will render the person liable to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to an imprisonment to a term not exceeding two years or to both.

Extradition and mutual legal assistance

Sir, the Convention requires Singapore to make hostage-taking offences extraditable. Clause 14 of the Bill provides for hostage-taking offences to be deemed as included in the list of extraditable offences under the First Schedule to the

Column: 898

Extradition Act. This is to facilitate any extradition request made by the countries who are parties to the Convention.

Where there is no extradition treaty in force between Singapore and a Convention country, or if the existing treaty does not provide for the extradition of persons accused or convicted of hostage-taking offences, clause 14 provides that the Minister for Law can issue a notification in the Gazette under section 4 of the Extradition Act, to apply the Act as if there was an extradition treaty between them.

To facilitate mutual legal assistance between the State Parties to the Convention, clause 13 of the Bill provides that a foreign hostage-taking offence shall not be deemed to be an offence of a political nature. This also applies to an extradition request. This is to prevent anyone from blocking mutual legal assistance or extradition on the ground that the offences in question are politically motivated.

Sir, we are obliged to provide mutual legal assistance in relation to an investigation or criminal or extradition proceedings, if requested by a country which is party to the Convention. However, any request for such assistance will have to be consistent with the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention in our domestic affairs. Singapore will render assistance within what is allowable under our domestic legal framework.

Sir, the threat of terrorism is a real one. Singapore condemns all forms of terrorism and I ask for Members' affirmation of the needs for perpetrators of any such acts or violence to be brought to justice.

Acceding to Convention and implementing the new Hostage-Taking Act will strengthen existing counter-terrorism

Column: 899

cooperation between Singapore and like-minded countries. It ensures that the perpetrators of hostage-taking acts will have no safe haven and complements domestic legal instruments already in place to deal with terrorists. Through these international and domestic instruments, we reiterate our commitment to combat terrorism and our unequivocal condemnation of their methods of violence.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.14 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.

Hostage-taking is an event which most Singaporeans associate with foreigners in areas of conflict far, far away. However, this sense of security was shattered two years ago in November when one of our own, a young Singaporean lawyer, was held hostage and subsequently killed by militants in Mumbai. Ms Lo Hwei Yen was only 28 years old then.

Acts of terrorism can hit anyone, regardless of age, gender, religion, race and nationality. While hostage-takers may or may not be perpetuating acts of terrorism, the fact is that terrorists use hostage-taking as one of their tactics to achieve their goals. Both hostage-takers and terrorists seek to accomplish their objectives by threatening harm; and, in the case of hostage-takers, by continuing to detain, injure or kill someone unless a third party accedes to the requests of the hostage-takers.

All too often, innocent parties totally unrelated to the conflict are caught in the crossfire and pay the ultimate price with their lives.

Column: 900

Ms Lo's tragedy underscores the importance of international cooperation to combat the threat of hostage-taking. The Bill seeks to enable Singapore to ratify and give effect to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. State Parties are to establish jurisdiction over these offences and make them punishable under their domestic laws. They are also required to either extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused of committing, attempting to commit, or aiding in the commission of the offences, and to assist other State Parties in connection with criminal proceedings brought under the Convention.

Where the punishment provision in relation to a person found guilty of a hostage-taking offence is concerned, I am of the view that we should not have a cap of 15 years. Would the Deputy Prime Minister consider giving the judges more leeway and flexibility to decide on this depending on the severity of the crime? In future, could the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) consider raising the cap of 15 years imprisonment to a life sentence? The judges can then factor in the duration the victim was detained, physical and psychological injuries inflicted, and corresponding harm to related parties to decide how many years up to a maximum of life imprisonment the offender deserves.

Under clause 5, failure to disclose information which can prevent the commission of a hostage-taking offence, or which is useful in securing the arrest, prosecution or conviction of a person for hostage-taking offences, is punishable with a fine not exceeding S$50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both. Would MHA consider raising these caps if it needs a larger deterrent effect on the behavior it seeks to prevent?

Column: 901

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to state my support for clause 13 of the Bill which provides that a foreign hostage-taking offence shall not be deemed to be an offence of a political nature.

The same requirement also applies to an extradition request. This is a positive feature of the Bill as it prevents anyone from blocking extradition or mutual legal assistance on the basis that the offences are politically motivated. This will ensure sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention in our domestic affairs.

Sir, the Bill is timely, and I support it.

3.18 pm

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Bill.

Hostage-taking is a particularly heinous crime. It is calculated at putting hostages in fear of their lives and, in so doing, to pressurise governments or other persons and to force them to do what hostage takers want.

In the context of hostage-taking where the demands are aimed at a government, it is frequently the aim of the hostage taker to put the relevant government in a no-win situation. The intention is that no matter what that government does, it will not be able to get it right. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not.

Rejecting their demands could mean the deaths of the hostages which in turn could have a public backlash on the government in question. It also inflicts terrible psychological scars on the hostages’ families, their friends and, often times, their fellow countrymen. They have to deal with the emotions of fear, guilt, pain, grief, loss and the sense that they and their loved ones will never be safe

Column: 902

again. These scars remain long after the incident is over.

On the other hand, acceding to hostage-takers’ demands will inevitably undermine confidence in the government in question, as that government will have bowed to the demands of the hostage takers and will be seen to be weak. Once a government gives in to such demands, hostage-taking will be seen as a viable way to coerce governments into doing what hostage takers want and it will only encourage other hostage takers to do more of the same.

It is no less heinous when the demands are aimed at persons other than governments or international governmental organisations, because the intention is still the same, which is to use psychological fear and emotional blackmail to compel another person to bow to objectionable and unlawful demands.

Given its vicious nature and widespread impact, hostage-taking must be countered by the international community taking a united stand against it, and by means of international co-operation.

International co-operation would reduce the hostage takers’ ability to find sanctuary, and increase the prospects of them being brought to account for their actions.

This Bill is, therefore, timely as it ratifies and gives effect to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17th December 1979. The Bill makes hostage-taking an offence, and allows our Government to prosecute the offence of hostage-taking wherever the act may have occurred, whether in Singapore or elsewhere.

This is one of the rare instances where our law provides for extra-territorial

Column: 903

jurisdiction for a criminal offence, but given the nature of this offence, it is right to do so.

I, therefore, support the provisions of the Bill and the general approach adopted. However, there are three issues arising from this Bill on which I would like to seek the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarification.

The first is on clause 3. Clause 3 has two parts. The first part describes the act of hostage-taking; the second part of it deals with the target of the demand. The first part of clause 3 of the Bill describes hostage-taking as the act of:

(a) seizing or detaining any person; and

(b) threatening to cause death or hurt to the person or to continue to detain such person, or giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or may continue to be detained, or causing death or hurt to such person.

That is the first part but the second part of it deals with who the hostage-taker is trying to compel – first, the government or an international inter-governmental organisation; or secondly, some other person. And if the person sought to be compelled is a government, then the penalty is death or life imprisonment together with fine or caning. But if the person sought to be compelled is a non-government entity, then the penalty is only imprisonment of up to 15 years and fine or caning.

I appreciate that it is usually more serious when you are trying to force a government to do something than when you are trying to force someone else into doing something. However, I am curious as to why the punishments would be

Column: 904

different, when the acts committed against the hostages could be the same.

For example, a hostage-taker could threaten to kill a hostage unless the CEO of a private organisation complies with certain demands. Given that in today’s globalised world, many organisations carry on businesses which have a global reach and impact, issuing a demand to such a non-government entity could also have serious consequences. For example, many telcos, transport companies, media companies, oil companies, banks and internet service providers are private businesses but they are global in nature, and their businesses can have a strategic significance. What if a hostage-taker takes someone hostage and tries to compel such an entity to do something which could have a strategic significance? The entity may not be a government or an international inter-governmental organisation, but the consequences of giving in to such a demand could still be very serious with widespread consequences. It seems anomalous to have different punishments depending on whether the target of the act sought to be compelled is government or non-government. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Deputy Prime Minister could explain the thinking behind the difference in penalties.

I also note that the definition of the offence of hostage-taking includes a situation where death is caused to the hostage. And this would be the equivalent of murder unless it can be shown that the causing of death was accidental or unintentional (though it is very difficult to see how it could be accidental or unintentional in a hostage situation).

In Singapore, the penalty for murder is the death penalty. Under clause 3(1)(b)(i) of the Bill, if the demand is aimed at the Government and if the hostage is killed, then the prescribed penalty would include a death penalty. However, under clause 3(1)(b)(ii) if the demand is aimed at a non-

Column: 905

government entity but if the hostage is nevertheless still killed, then the maximum penalty is only imprisonment of up to 15 years and a fine or caning. There is no provision for death penalty in that situation. This is again inconsistent and I would be grateful for the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarification on the rationale behind the difference in penalties of the two situations.

A third point which I wish to seek clarification is clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill imposes an obligation on anyone who has information which he knows or believes to be of material assistance in, amongst other things, securing the conviction of a person for the offence of hostage-taking and to inform the Police. Failure to do so will be an offence.

I would support this approach in general but I have a concern about this provision in one very specific scenario. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is intended that under clause 5 to take away the protection of legal professional privilege in a situation where the hostage taker is being prosecuted and he is being defended by counsel? Hostage-taking is a heinous crime and should be prosecuted robustly. However in Singapore, we respect the rule of law and one important aspect of the rule of law is that when a person has been charged in court, he is entitled to put up a defence. A corollary of this is that an accused person must be able to instruct his counsel with the assurance that what is said to his counsel is protected by legal professional privilege. In the course of taking instructions for the defence, the counsel may come into possession of information which may be of material assistance in securing the conviction of his client, and this information may not be in the hands of the prosecution. But, at the same time, he is duty bound to defend the client and is bound by the rules of privilege. This

Column: 906

section makes it an offence for the counsel not to disclose the information which puts the counsel in a very difficult position. I, therefore, wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister for clarification as to exactly how clause 5 is intended to impact on information that would normally be protected by legal professional privilege, so that defence counsels will know the exact scope of their obligations if they ever have to defend a hostage-taker.

With that, Mr Speaker, I am fully in support of the Bill.

3.26 pm

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): In the current climate of terrorist and hostage activities that we see today, it is essential to remain vigilant. We live in an age where increased global travels, with increasing numbers of people venturing into high-risk and exotic areas for activities such as missionary work, humanitarian work, work-related travels and even holidays. It is thus very timely to debate on this Bill.

The motives of terrorist acts vary. Hostage incidents may involve demands for money, recognition, property, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this Bill.

I support the forms of punishment set forth in the Bill, and especially the call to freeze bank accounts involved.

Sir, I would suggest further that we do not put a cap at 15 years but allow for the limit and the ceiling to be decided on a case-by-case consideration as deserving of each unique case, its consequences as well as its effects.

On the issue pertaining to "extra-territoriality" (clause 4), can the Deputy Prime Minister please clarify if there is any

Column: 907

difference for the "person who commits" if he is a citizen of Singapore versus if he is not a citizen?

In the event that a non-Singapore citizen is arrested for such an offence, pertaining to this Act, what will be the relevant procedures and processes he has to go through, in getting in touch with representatives of his State? This becomes relevant because we know that once a citizen of another country has been arrested or detained here for such acts, it is often inevitable somehow that the adequacy of human rights issues and the legal measures of our nation will be thrust into the forefront, to be reviewed or even dissected by others.

In such cases, Sir, I believe our principles of sovereignty and integrity must be respected and upheld at all times. Also, what happens if the hostage-taking incident happens in an aeroplane, or on a ship? Will it then be that the person will be convicted and treated based on which country’s airspace or waters the incident happens in?

Sir, with this Act, can I also ask what will happen to the United Nations Convention adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations which stipulates that any person who has committed an act of hostage-taking shall either be prosecuted or extradited? Does one override the other in specific instances and circumstances?

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, with the passing of this Bill, it is my wish to see more training and awareness programmes being carried out for the public and community. One good example we have is the NorthStar exercise involving multiple stakeholders. We need to augment their understanding and the teamwork between agencies working

Column: 908

together in these specialised circumstances. We need to educate and inform all levels of society, from school children to senior citizens, on the importance of their commitment and their buy-in as individuals. Finally, Mr Speaker, preparedness and awareness is indeed crucial as a first preventive step.

*Cols. 1013-1014.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I wish to thank Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Indranee Raja and Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef for supporting the Bill. They have raised some specific questions and I will attempt to deal with them as far as I can.

Mr de Souza asked if the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) would consider raising the penalties under clauses 3 and 5 of the Bill.

Well, we agree that the penalties for the hostage-taking offences must commensurate with the severity of the offences committed. To this end, we have been very careful in calibrating the penalties for hostage-taking offences vis-a-vis the other penalties that we have under our other laws. The proposed penalties are consistent with those for other serious offences under existing legislations. To provide some points of reference, the penalty of 15 years imprisonment of acts of hostage-taking to compel any other person mirrors that in the current section 364(a) of the Penal Code. The penalty for failure to disclose information is also consistent with the penalties provided for in the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act and Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act.

Ms Indranee has asked about the differentiation in penalty between the hostage-taking act to compel the Government and to compel any other persons. While we recognise that the threats made to other persons can be serious, we must ensure that the harshest penalties are reserved for cases where such penalties are justified. In the case of acts against governments, we need to send a very strong signal, a deterrent

Column: 909

signal, that hostage-taking cannot be used as a means to unduly influence or manipulate a government – any government for that matter. Nonetheless, we will review this in the future and we will see whether the penalties for acts against other persons are sufficient or not. If not, we will see how they can be further enhanced.

Ms Indranee has also asked for clarification on how clause 5 of the Hostage-Taking Bill affects the information that is given or protected by the legal profession's privilege. Clause 5 is not intended to override the legal profession's privilege. If a person confesses to a lawyer that he has committed hostage-taking with a view to engaging the lawyer to defend him, then this information is protected from disclosure by privilege. However, legal professional privilege does not protect any information or fact revealed to the counsel that furthers any illegal purpose; eg, information on an impending hostage-taking offence. This provision is also not intended to require the defence counsel to disclose other information he obtains in the course of defending his client, the accused person, as this would make it, in practice, very difficult for the accused person to get representation by counsel. However, if the lawyer chooses to disclose the information, he would be protected by clause 5(3) of the Bill against disciplinary proceedings.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef made mention of the United Nations Convention adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Indeed the Hostage-Taking Bill, when passed, will give effect to the International Convention against the taking of hostages. Under the scheme of the Bill, any person who commits an act of hostage-taking shall either be prosecuted or extradited, as provided for by Article 8 of the Convention. The course of action taken will, of course, be dependent on the circumstances of each case. Ultimately, the underlining aim of

Column: 910

the Convention is to ensure that the perpetuators of hostage-taking are brought to justice.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef also asked for clarification on the issue pertaining to extraterritoriality, specifically whether there is any differentiation between cases where the hostage-taker is a Singaporean or a non-Singaporean, and in cases when the hostage is a Singapore citizen. Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef has also asked what would happen if the hostage-taking incident takes place in an aeroplane or on ship.

The Hostage-Taking Bill does not differentiate between cases where the hostage-taker or the hostage is a Singaporean or a non-Singaporean. If the alleged offender is found in our territory, we will have to investigate and arrest the alleged offender and then determine whether to submit the case for prosecution or to extradite him to a requesting state which has claim to jurisdiction. This is to ensure that a state party does not let an alleged offender go free because the offence was not committed within its territory. Therefore it does not matter where the incident has taken place. If the offence happens on-board a Singapore-flagged airplane or ship which is in the international airspace or waters of another country, it may be possible for both Singapore and the other government in whose territory where the offence occurs to concurrently have jurisdiction over the offence. The alleged offender will then be dealt with under the laws of whichever country that exercises jurisdiction. If Singapore wishes to exercise jurisdiction over the offence, then the Bill gives the Government power to either prosecute or to seek extradition of the alleged offender from another country, where appropriate.

With regard to the arrest of a non-Singapore citizen for offences under the Hostage-Taking Bill, Assoc. Prof. Fatimah

Column: 911

Lateef asked what are the relevant procedures and processes for the individual to get in touch with the representatives of his state. A non-Singaporean who is arrested here for such offences will be subjected to the normal criminal process; as a foreigner, his Embassy or its representative will be notified and he can then seek consular assistance from that government. In the case where Singapore has no extradition treaty with the country that is also a party to the Convention, I have already said that clause 14(2) of our Bill allows the Law Minister to gazette that country under section 4 of the Extradition Act to apply the Extradition Act to that country as if such a treaty existed. However, this gazette notification would only apply to hostage-taking offences. There is no obligation under the Convention to extradite an alleged taker to a non-Convention country.

Sir, this Bill is a key instrument supporting our counter-terrorism efforts. As mentioned by Members, we also need to raise the community's awareness and their involvement in counter-terrorism. The Government has worked very closely with the community to sensitise them to threats of terrorism and to encourage them to take greater ownership of their own security. And the response so far has been encouraging. People across the various domains and institutions including the banks, large foreign business corporations, retail, hotel industry, grassroots, schools, and even taxi drivers, have attended the numerous security briefings, talks and discussions organised by our security and enforcement agencies. The NorthStar exercises conducted by the Home Team also showcased our collective determination to not just a whole-of-Government perspective but also a whole-of-nation perspective to prevail over the threats of transnational terrorism. We will continue to invest our resources on this

Column: 912

front as it is an effective way of raising awareness and preparedness in our community.

Sir, I believe that I have dealt with all the questions or points raised by the Members.

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 Wong Kan Seng]

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Column: 912

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Ms Indranee Rajah) in the Chair]: