REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the issues raised by Prof. Chin Tet Yung and Mr Chandra Mohan can be classified into the following areas:

One is whether it is more appropriate to have this procedure to take body samples or even other particulars like finger impression and photograph in the CPC. The second is whether when consent is not given by the person, then should an appropriate warning be administered. The third is whether we have competent persons to handle this and whether the procedures are tight to make sure that there will be no abuses and that proper procedures are followed. The fourth is regarding the purging of records of people who are registered on the Register of Criminals. Let me deal with these issues.

On the procedure part of it, what we are doing now is not different from what is provided for in the Act. For example, in the case of finger impression and photograph, these are clearly laid out in the Registration of Criminals Act. What we have added in the Bill is the taking of body samples. By body samples, it could be head hair follicle or a buckle swab in the mouth. For these two body samples, they do not require the consent of the person. The Police could just do it, just like what they do now for finger impression and photograph. It is only when the Police want to take a body sample, like a blood sample, then consent must be sought because we consider taking of blood samples to be a bit more intrusive. But, in practice, it is not like the case where you need to see a doctor, and he puts a syringe into your vein and takes out whatever millilitres of blood. It is just like what you do for blood grouping, where the nurse uses a little needle to prick your finger and take a little sample of blood. That is all that is to do it. It is not that bad. For those who do blood grouping, and I am sure many of them would have done so, this is not going to hurt them a lot.

But if the suspect refuses to give that consent, he can be brought to court and the court may order him to provide the blood sample. And if he still refuses, of course, appropriate warning will be given and inferences will be drawn by the court for his refusal to provide that blood sample. But if the blood sample is not taken, there are two other methods, for example, the head hair follicle or the buckle swab, or if not, it could be saliva. It could also be skin cells. So let me settle this question first.

Next is whether the procedures are tight enough. The procedures will certainly be very tight. For example, for the taking of a blood sample, it will be properly recorded. It is sealed in a box and it will be stored properly and brought to HSA. Only HSA officers have the key to open that box and they will compare the list of blood samples with the names provided by the Police as recorded by the Police. As I have said earlier, the people who need to take the samples will be trained. It is not a very difficult thing to do.

As to the purging of records, I have said before that we are reviewing the Registration of Criminals Act to see how we can consider some records as spent. Then the court may no longer take cognisance of them and Police may not use them. But this is still under review and therefore I will not be able to give an answer today. But at an appropriate time, when the review is completed, I will share more of that review.

As to returning the record of persons who are subsequently acquitted, as raised by Mr Chandra Mohan, this need not be done. The records are stored by electronic means. So, the only way is to delete them. I do not see how they can be returned. The Police will take action to delete the record when the person is acquitted.

The question was also asked by Mr Mohan whether DNA test is a good test. I have already explained that DNA test provides the probability of an identical DNA only in the case of one in a billion. In fact, depending on the number of multiple markers used, it can be one in 250 billion. It will be much more accurate than that of a finger impression.

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.