STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

Column: 2042

The Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, as its title implies, this Bill contains a number of amendments to several Acts which are mainly technical in nature. Let me highlight the key ones.

Amendments to the Subordinate Courts Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act and Workplace Safety and Health Act (Clauses 4 to 7)

The Chief Justice has decided to re-designate the apex post in the Subordinate Courts from "Senior District Judge" to "Chief District Judge", as the phrase "Senior District Judge" does not fully convey the leadership role of the apex position. The amendment will effect a change in the title of the apex post in the lower courts but it does not change the scope of the role. Clauses 4 to 7 amend the Subordinate Courts Act and various other Acts to change the designation of "Senior District Judge" to "Chief District Judge", and to effect a similar change in any other written law or any other instrument.

Amendments to the Casino Control Act (Clause 9)

Sir, the next set of amendments, which are contained in clause 9, relates to the Casino Control Act. We are amending the language and minor details to improve the interpretation and administration of the Casino Control Act.

Currently, the Act defines "chips" to mean "any tokens used instead of money for the purpose of gaming". Clause 9 amends the definition of "chips" to include wagering vouchers and other instruments with a fixed dollar value. Wagering vouchers are commonly used these days in electronic gaming machines. Our two casino operators intend to use

Column: 2043

these too. Amending the definition of "chips" to include wagering vouchers will remove any ambiguity as to whether a casino patron may use such vouchers for gaming in the casinos.

Clause 9 also removes references to goods and services tax (GST) in the specification of the entry levy under section 116 of the Casino Control Act. As the entry levy is regulatory in nature, no GST is chargeable on the entry levy. In addition, clause 9 also amends section 117(3) of the Casino Control Act to make it clear that entry levies, whether paid on time or recovered as a debt, should be payable to the Singapore Totalisator Board, and shall be used by that Board for public, social or charitable purposes in Singapore. The amendment addresses an anomaly between section 116(2) (where entry levies paid on time are paid to the Singapore Totalisator Board), and the current section 117(3) (where entry levies recovered as a civil debt are paid to the Government).

Amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Clause 13)

Next, clause 13 makes various amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA) to enhance Singapore’s anti-money laundering regime and bring Singapore into greater compliance with recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a body which sets international standards to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Singapore has been a member of FATF since 1991.

First, clause 13 amends sections 46(2) and 47(2) of the CDSA to make it clear that an offence is committed so long as the accused does the act knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the property represents another person’s

Column: 2044

proceeds of crime. The requirement to show that the accused had committed the act for the purpose of assisting the launderer to avoid prosecution for a drug trafficking or serious offence or the making or enforcement of a confiscation order is removed. Second, clause 13 amends sections 46(3) and 47(3) of the CDSA to make it clear that an offence is committed even if the accused acquires the property at fair value, if he does so knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the property represents the proceeds of crime of another person. Lastly, clause 13 amends section 48(2)(a) of the CDSA to criminalise the act of tipping off a person when the tipper knows or has reasonable grounds to suspect that a suspicious transaction report (STR) is being made under the Act. The current section 48(2)(a) only covers cases where the STR has already been made.

Amendments to the Singapore Academy of Law Act (Clause 15)

Sir, another Act that is amended is the Singapore Academy of Law Act (SAL). Since 1997, the SAL has undertaken a stakeholding function and has built up the necessary infrastructure to provide a stakeholding service for properties in Singapore. Clause 15 expressly clarifies the SAL stakeholding function and the power to retain its income from stakeholding. As the SAL is now relying predominantly on its own revenue streams to fund its work and no longer relies on public donations, clause 15 removes the provision that deems the SAL to be an institution of a public character approved under the Charities Act.

Amendments to the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act and Pensions Act (Clauses 2 and 3)

Next, clauses 2 and 3 remove terms in the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act (MTERA) and the Pensions

Column: 2045

Act that are no longer in use as a result of the restructuring of Government hospitals. All restructured hospitals now come under MOH Holdings Pte Ltd. For example, in the MTERA, terms such as "Superintendent" and "Government hospital", which are no longer applicable, will be replaced by the terms "designated officer" and "approved hospital" respectively. Another example is in the Pensions Act, where the phrase "a male nurse at a Government mental hospital" is no longer applicable and will be deleted.

Amendments to the Competition Act (Clause 12)

Next, clause 12 amends section 69 of the Competition Act to empower the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) to charge interest on the instalment payment and late payment of financial penalties. This is to enable compliance with paragraphs 24 and 27 of the Government Instruction Manual section on "Receipts". Clause 12 also amends section 72(15) of the Competition Act to clarify that the Competition Appeal Board (CAB) has powers to order interest on any financial penalties that it imposes, confirms, or varies, which the CAB is already empowered under the Competition (Appeals) Regulations to do.

Amendments to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act 2009 (Clause 10)

Sir, clause 10 amends the definition of "air navigation services" under the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act (CAAS Act) to include "communications, navigation and surveillance services" to make it consistent with the International Civil Aviation Organisation definition. Clause 10 also amends section 52(2) of the CAAS Act to allow the Minister for Transport to make rules prescribing the methodology or other matters of determining the maximum prices for

Column: 2046

aeronautical charges in addition to "content, form and procedure", which will provide greater clarity to the provision. Lastly, clause 10 corrects a typographical error in section 72(7) of the CAAS Act.

Other Miscellaneous Amendments

Finally Sir, a few amendments are proposed to facilitate better administration of various Acts.

Amendment to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority Act (Clause 8)

Clause 8 amends the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority Act (ACRA Act) to allow ACRA’s legal officers to represent the Registrar, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars of Limited Partnerships, who are ACRA officers appointed by the Minister for Finance under the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 (LP Act) to administer the LP Act, in civil proceedings and other related matters.

Amendment to the Employment Act (Clause 14)

Next, clause 14 creates an offence for a breach of sections 88 and 89 of the Employment Act. This ensures that employers who are required to provide for paid holidays and sick leave under the Employment Act can be taken to task for failure to comply.

Amendments to the Community Mediation Centres Act (Clause 11)

Lastly, Sir, clause 11 makes some "house-keeping" amendments to the Community Mediation Centres Act, namely, to correct cross-references to section numbers in corresponding legislations which have been amended.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Column: 2047

3.10 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Statutes (Amendment) Bill makes varied amendments to a number of Acts. I would like to zoom in on the changes made to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.

The requirement that the act of concealing criminal proceeds be done for the purpose of avoiding prosecution is removed. This move is a positive one, because requiring the prosecution to prove motive for committing the act merely creates an additional and unnecessary hurdle before the offence is made out. If the accused knows that he is handling criminal proceeds, and takes steps to conceal them, he can hardly be said to be acting for legitimate reasons anyway.

Also, there is no longer a requirement for an offence that criminal proceeds be acquired for no or inadequate payment. This effectively broadens the scope of the offence, making it easier for the innocent to be wrongly caught – but, at the same time, ensuring that those who acquire criminal proceeds knowingly are rightly convicted, even if they pay fair value for their acquisition.

Sir, it is also to be noted that the offence is made out even if the accused merely has reason to know that he is dealing in criminal proceeds – he does not need to actually know that he is dealing in criminal proceeds. This means that there is the possibility that one who does not actually know he is dealing in criminal proceeds, and pays fair value for the acquisition of the proceeds – one who has been duped by the criminal – can be convicted for this offence.

Sir, how will this affect Internet commerce? Will buyers be expected to do

Column: 2048

due diligence on sellers before they purchase? What about pawnshop owners and dealers of second-hand goods, who are at the greatest risk of being mistakenly categorised as an offender? Are there any safeguards for these groups of people?

Sir, another small note to make is that if the requirement of "no or inadequate consideration" is removed, then section 46(5) and section 47(5) of the original Act will become redundant and should similarly be removed.

With that, I support the Bill.

3.12 pm

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Mr Speaker, I have a very brief note on this Bill and my observations are very similar to Mdm Ho's.

I think it is noteworthy to highlight that clause 13 changes the elements of an offence and the nature of what constitutes an offence. In the original Act, the public prosecutor would require evidence that links the accused with the criminal act. In the proposed amendment, the public prosecutor needs only to show that the accused had reasonable grounds to believe that the money was tainted.

These proposed amendments changes the standards of prove in favour of the public prosecutor but I have no issue with this.

I support the Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first let me thank both Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan for speaking in support of the Bill.

On the removal of the requirement that the act of concealing criminal

Column: 2049

proceeds be done for the purpose of avoiding prosecution, let me assure Assoc. Prof. Straughan that even with the amendment, the prosecution still needs to prove that the accused had carried out some act of concealing, disguising, conversion or transferral of tainted property. In addition, the prosecution also needs to prove that the accused in committing the said acts knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the money was another person's tainted property. In other words, the prosecution still needs to prove the existence of these two key elements which are known in criminal law. Lawyers amongst us will know it is actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the guilty intent). What is removed is the motive, that is, to show that the accused committed the acts for the purpose of assisting another person to avoid prosecution or the enforcement of a confiscation order. Indeed, as Mdm Ho has said, in fact, she hails this move as a positive one because as she puts it, to prove motive for committing the act creates an additional and unnecessary hurdle.

Mdm Ho is correct. As an analogy, I just put this forward to assure Assoc. Prof. Straughan, if a person receives or retains stolen property, knowing or believing that they are stolen property, he would have committed a crime already, under the Penal Code, for dishonestly receiving stolen property. There is no need for the prosecution to go further, to show that the accused committed the act for the purpose of helping the thief to avoid prosecution. Indeed, this amendment brings the affected provisions into full conformity, with Article 61A2 of the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime as well as Article 31B1 of the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in aquatic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Column: 2050

Mdm Ho then makes a further point that the removal of the requirement where the acquisition of proceeds of crime are made for no or inadequate consideration broadens the scope and makes it easier for the innocent to be wrongly caught. But let me assure her that this is not the intent of the amendment. The essence of this amendment is to plug the gap where informed criminals may intentionally acquire proceeds of crime at fair value to escape prosecution. So, for example, if a person who is knowledgeable, such as an art connoisseur, pays market value for a stolen artwork, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the artwork was stolen, currently, he will be able to use the fact that he paid market value as a defence, even though he would have helped to launder the benefits of crime. So, conversely, an innocent person who acquires proceeds of crime without knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that it is from an illicit source, so be it through Internet commerce or as a pawn shop owner, or as a dealer in second hand goods, he will not be guilty of an offence. The onus, and this is a key point to bear in mind, is that the prosecution still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe that these were proceeds of crime. These are the substantive points. Let me give those assurances.

On the procedural point, on section 46(5) and section 47(5), which Mdm Ho has pointed out, indeed, she is right that with these amendments, these two sub-sections have become otiose. But let me assure her that it will not affect the interpretation of the Act at all and will be removed at the next available opportunity.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Column: 2051

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Bill considered in Committee.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee:

The Chairman: The citation year "2009" will be changed to "2010", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 50 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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