POLICE FORCE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Background

The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) was set up in October 1984 as a specialised agency within the Ministry of Finance to investigate and enforce serious and complex commercial fraud cases. In March 1989, Parliament conferred certain police powers on the Director CAD and Commercial Affairs Officers (CAOs) appointed by the Minister for Finance.

Currently, depending on the classification of the offences, most major commercial crimes are investigated either by the CAD or the Criminal Investigations Department's Commercial Crime Division (CCD). The CAD is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complex commercial crimes, including offences under the Securities Industry Act, the Companies Act, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Acts, and the Futures Trading Act. CID's Commercial Crime Division investigates fraud offences punishable, for example, under the Penal Code, and the Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act. Over the years, CAD has built up its strength in combating complex fraud, syndicated white collar crimes, securities offences, such as insider trading and market rigging, and serious corporate offences, while CCD has had considerable successes against cheats, credit card fraudsters and syndicates behind scams that promise quick profits. Both Departments have distinguished themselves in their own right. But changes are needed to position them to tackle the changes and new threats in the operating environment.

Why Merge - Anticipating Commercial Crime in the Future

To have a specialised agency to investigate "serious or complex" commercial fraud remains relevant not only today, but more so in the future. As Singapore opens up its finance sector and further develops as a regional financial hub, the development of our capital market, banking and financial industries and electronic commerce is likely to attract increasingly sophisticated commercial crime frauds. Commercial crimes in the coming years are likely to become more complex and the perpetrators may be involved in a mix of company and penal code offences - expertise to deal with these should therefore be merged. An effective enforcement regime is critical to protect the integrity of our financial markets and business environment.

This increasing sophistication and complexity of commercial crimes necessitates the pooling of scarce resources, the enforcement and intelligence capabilities in CAD and CCD, into a single unit. So early next year, the CAD and CCD will merge. The CAD will be reconstituted as a separate department in the Singapore Police Force with the same standing as the CID. The combined department will still be known as CAD to retain its reputation as the premier anti-commercial crime agency.

The new CAD will investigate a wide spectrum of major commercial crimes. Other commercial crimes, such as cheating, will still be handled by the Police land divisions. By merging the CCD with the CAD, investigative resources and intelligence capabilities will be pooled, thereby resulting in synergies and even greater effectiveness in combating commercial crimes. The CAD will be working in collaboration with the Financial and Securities Offences sub-division of the Criminal Justice Division in the Attorney-General's Chambers, a dedicated specialist unit formed in August this year. A mechanism will be put in place to ensure that the transfer of CAD to the Police Force will not result in CAD losing touch with MAS and the Finance Ministry on policy development issues relating to the financial sector.

Proposed Amendments

Currently, the Commercial Affairs Officers appointed by the Minister for Finance already have police powers to investigate offences under the Companies Act, the Securities Industry Act and other seizable offences under any written law disclosed in the course of investigations under the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act as provided under section 409B of the Companies Act. In order to ensure that the new CAD has the necessary legal powers to carry out their functions effectively, clause 2 of the Bill seeks to introduce a new section 58A to empower the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint Commercial Affairs Officers to investigate any suspected offence under any written law. The new section also confers on CAOs, for the purposes of investigation, all the powers of investigation of police officers under the Criminal Procedure Code or any other written law as the Minister for Home Affairs may prescribe by notification in the Gazette. The Commercial Affairs Officers are also given the immunities relating to acts done in obedience to a warrant under section 37 of the Act.

Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to repeal section 409B of the Companies Act as CAD will now be reconstituted as a department under the Singapore Police Force.

Sir, this combination of two elite departments marks a new milestone in our efforts to gear up for the challenges of the new millennium. The reconstituted CAD will go beyond a mere transfer of the current functions of CAD to the Police Force and the AGC. We will expand the capabilities of the new CAD to match the increasingly sophisticated nature of commercial crime. The new CAD will strive to be a world class investigative/enforcement agency, in line with Singapore's growing status as a financial hub.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and the reasons given by the Minister as to why the CAD will be merged with the CCD.

I have only two clarifications to ask of the Minister. Clause 2 inserts a new section 58A which provides for the appointment of Commercial Affairs Officers. By integrating these officers into the Force, they are given the power to investigate any suspected offence under written law. I should like to ask the Minister whether this means that officers will all be retrained to perform a wider role in investigation. By empowering them to investigate any suspected offence, is it the intention that they be regarded as regular Police Officers who may be expected to investigate all manner of crimes?

Secondly, these officers are to be invested with the powers of investigation with the rank of not below inspector. In fact, the Commissioner of Police may confer the powers of an ASP (Assistant Superintendent of Police) on such officers. Yet the general provisions of the Police Force Act do not apply to them other than section 37 which is already mentioned by the Minister. That section exempts them from liability if they perform an act that was done in accordance with the warrant. Can the Minister clarify whether these officers are to be subject to the same discipline as the other members of the police force?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a query for the Minister under subclause (2) of this new clause. As it now stands, it reads "A Commercial Affairs Officer may investigate any suspected offence which appears to him to have been committed under any written law." I am puzzled that the legislation proposes to give powers to a police officer to "investigate any suspected offence which appears to him .". Under the Criminal Procedure Code, police can only investigate where there is a report or complaint received at a police station and reduced into writing, or where an offence is committed by any member of the public in the view of a police officer. What exactly is contemplated by the word "appears"? Is this Commercial Affairs Officer to be given power to investigate where there is no complaint or no information received, but where he thinks there might have been an offence committed under a written law?

As has been mentioned by the Minister himself, this officer is now not only confined to offences which previously the Commercial Affairs Department was confined to investigate, but now a whole box of offences has been open to him because it is any offence under any written law. Should not some restraint be imposed before a Commercial Affairs Officer begins to investigate? Or is he going to be allowed to investigate anything just because he suddenly gets it into his head that somebody may have committed some offence or some companies have committed some offence? It opens the door to abuse. I think there must be some restraint, as is the case with police officers in the investigation of crimes and other offences. Even the CPIB will have to have a report or complaint received before they embark on any investigation. So would the Minister explain what exactly is meant by the phrase "appears to him"?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, let me deal with Prof. Chin's question first. Would the officers be retrained to perform a wider role? These Commercial Affairs Officers have already been on the job for a long time. They have been conferred with police powers since 1989 to investigate seizable offences under the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act, or any other seizable offences disclosed in the course of such investigation. So they already know how to exercise such police powers. In the reconstituted CAD, they will be given powers to investigate offences disclosed under other Acts, for example, the Penal Code, Futures Trading Act and a list of other Acts. So they are not fresh or totally new to the way the police conducts its investigation and therefore they are not unfamiliar with the procedures. What they need to do of course is to be familiar with the Acts as well. I can assure the Member that proper training will be given to them. They are not police officers. They are Commercial Affairs Officers, civilian officers who have powers to investigate certain offences, just like the CPIB or Immigration officers who are civilians and who have powers to investigate the offences committed under the Acts under their charge. So this is not something new that we are doing.

The Police Force Act does not apply to them, but certainly the civil service rules, the disciplinary procedures and the IMs do apply to them. They are fully aware of what they have to do in order to maintain the reputation that they have acquired over the last 15 years. There has not been any incident that I could recall that these officers have abused the powers when exercising the powers which they have under those Acts which have been prescribed. So I do not worry that, by giving them more powers to investigate offences under other Acts, they will abuse their powers.

Mr Jeyaretnam raised this drafting point in clause 2. That is the way the law has been drafted by the AG and I depend on the AG for legal advice on the way the law should be drafted. I have no reason to doubt that that will open itself to abuse. What we know in Singapore is that the laws are clear enough. There are rules and guidelines and there is recourse for people who feel that their rights have been transgressed to take the matter to the proper channels. So if an officer abuses his powers for whatever reason, just because he does not like a certain person and he starts to investigate that person, that would be an abuse of power.

I do not think there is anyone here more concerned about abuse of police powers than I am for the reason that our law enforcement agencies have acquired a reputation which is quite high. Anybody who tries to abuse his powers and as a result undermines public confidence in the organisation will be disciplined and, if necessary, charged in the courts. So there will be safeguards and there will be checks and balances. For the CAO who investigates and eventually recommends a prosecution, the decision does not lie with the CAD, nor does it lie with the Commissioner of Police. Unlike now, the decision to prosecute in the great part is being decided by the CAD Director in consultation with the AG. Under the new arrangement, the CAD officers will investigate and send their investigation papers to the Attorney-General's Chambers which has a specialist team to study and eventually decide on prosecution.

I do not believe that any investigation can be conducted without a complaint or a report. So if Mr Jeyaretnam thinks that just because somebody does not like another person's face an investigation can be launched, then let me assure him that that would not be the case. If he does know of any case, please let me know and I will certainly look into it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister by way of clarification? Instead of saying that if the officers do abuse their powers, there are methods of finding out, is it not better to confine their investigating powers? And would the Minister, I am quite serious about this, refer this back to the Attorney-General to consider whether the word "appears" should be taken out and something else put in place?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, if the Commercial Affairs Officer decides that that is a matter to be pursued and he conducts an investigation but actually there is no basis to do so and therefore abuses his power, the matter will be found out. There will be internal checks. There will be meetings. There will be proper follow-up. There will be operating procedures to ensure that whatever the officer investigates is proper, and there is a basis for such an investigation.

As to his question on clause 2, I do not think that this is the only piece of legislation that has the words "which appears to him". I am sure there are also other pieces of legislation that have the word "appears" and I am sure Mr Jeyaretnam, as a lawyer, should know. And, as I said, I depend on the Attorney-General for his advice whom I deeply trust.

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.