Debated in Parliament on 2 Aug 2021.
Debate resumed.
We move on with the Second Reading for the Police Force (Amendment) Bill. Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a board director of Surbana Jurong Pte Ltd which owns Aetos Holdings Pte Ltd, an Auxiliary Police Force.
The Bill marks another important step ahead in protecting the safety and security of Singaporeans and enforcement officers. It is perhaps also most opportune during the 200th year of the establishment of the Singapore Police Force (SPF).
The enhancement of the SPF’s operational capabilities is greatly welcomed. Section 114A now explicitly affirms the protection of Police officers from personal liability. Officers must be assured that they are protected so that they can discharge their duties without the nagging worries of personal liability while legitimately carrying out their duties. We note that this has been carefully calibrated: greater protection is afforded to our officers but balanced by criminal liability and disciplinary actions to prevent and punish those who flagrantly abuse their powers in bad faith.
Our officers do not operate in a risk-free, benign and simplistic environment. They often have to rely on their training, exercise judgement and take on certain risks, especially in critical, complex and time-sensitive situations. In my years of running operations in the Police Force, I have seen that even the best officers could and would make mistakes. And these mistakes were crucial to the Police's collective learning. Mistakes can also come from taking well-managed risks.
Nothing affects the ability of an officer to discharge his duties more than knowing that the law does not protect them or is even against them. I hope that these considerations can be included in the upcoming regulations to be prescribed by the Ministry in determining what constitutes "good faith" and "reasonable care". These regulations should also not be unnecessarily rigid or prescriptive such that they stifles execution in fluid operational situations. Yet, neither could it be so broad as to leave practitioners directionless.
Enforcement officers work in a hierarchy with clear chains of command. They are usually either guided by supervisors or Standard Operating Procedures. If there is, indeed, a situation where an officer did not act in good faith and/or reasonable care, then what is also the liability of officers in the chain of command? I hope that officers do not lose operational effectiveness in becoming overly circumspect in guiding their officers or executing their duties.
Sir, I also seek a few clarifications and suggestions on the amendments for the Ministry’s consideration.
My first suggestion relates to motorists who evade road barriers. Under section 26(8)(a), a person guilty of evading a road barrier faces a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to a term of seven years, or both. The Mackenzie Road incident in 2017, which left two of our officers injured, has shown us how brazen a minority of motorists can be in evading road barriers. Evasion not only reflects intent to conceal criminality but can also cause considerable danger and inconvenience. Could the Ministry consider imposing a minimum punishment, including a mandatory jail term, for evading road barriers?
I believe this would serve as a forceful deterrent, demonstrating the Ministry's zero-tolerance stance towards such acts.
My next suggestion relates to the liability of employers of Auxiliary Police Forces, or APFs, under section 87(9). At present, liability under section 87(9) is not explicit within the following provisions: sections 87(5), (7) and (8). These subsections are important in ensuring that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) retains regulatory oversight over how APFs are run. For example, section 87(7) underlines the need for Singaporeans to retain the controlling interests in APF companies. Should we attach legal liabilities for infringing the above-mentioned provisions?
Can I also clarify that section 88 also applies to entities and persons with indirect control over the board of the employer of the Auxiliary Police Forces? For example, company A has an indirect control over the employer of the APF via a controlling stake in the parent company owning the employer of the APFs? Ultimately, the Ministry should be afforded greater regulatory oversight over APFs, ensuring that APFs maintain the highest standards expected.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at its core, passing this Bill will strengthen our ability to keep the people of Singapore safe by judiciously strengthening the operational readiness of the SPF and the Ministry's oversight over APFs. Our officers must be provided with the full armour of the law to take the stand against criminals and discharge their duties. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill. These clarifications pertain to three areas. First, the delegation of powers to civilian officers; second, the conduct of roadblocks; and third, the new powers to be given to Commercial Affairs Officers and Special Police Officers.
First, delegation of powers to civilian officers. Under the existing Act, the powers of the Commissioner (CP) may be delegated by him to a Police officer not below the rank of superintendent. In the case of the Deputy Commissioner (DCP), his powers may be delegated by CP to a Police officer not below the rank of an assistant superintendent.
Clause 5 of the Bill will change the position to enable such powers of the CP or DCP to be delegated to non-Police personnel who are performing duties in the Police Force not below the prescribed grade. In the Ministry's media release on the Bill on 5 July, it was clarified that this provision would allow delegation of CP’s or DCP’s powers to civilian officers in leadership positions within the SPF.
I am somewhat concerned about what this change will entail. For instance, is it envisaged that the command of the force at the highest levels could conceivably be delegated to civilian officers from time to time? If this is so, I wonder how well this will go down amongst uniformed officers.
Sir, we assume that Police training is a critical prerequisite for exercising Police powers, let alone for commanding those who exercise such powers. Further, developing Police leadership skills is a specialised field that, in recent years, has been spearheaded by the Police Psychological Services Division. The assessments require potential Police leaders to be put through simulations of incident management at the frontline and officers are also continually developed for Police leadership. There is also an organisational culture amongst uniformed personnel which can be quite distinct from civilians working in the same organisation.
That being the case, one has to wonder about the delegation of Police leadership powers at the highest level to civilians. While these civilians may be senior enough in grade, would they have the necessary experience and credibility to exercise such command responsibilities?
Although there are other provisions in the main Act that allow for assignment of powers to civilians, they are usually clearly scoped. For instance, section 18 of the Act enables the Minister to appoint civilians to exercise powers to grant licences. To expect civilians to exercise such administrative powers seems unobjectionable, compared with the prospect of them exercising command or frontline powers.
Sir, my view is that the scope of clause 5 is not clear as the wording is not qualified. A further explanation of what is envisaged would be necessary. Earlier in the Second Reading speech, the Minister of State did reiterate or confirm that certain powers of the CP would be non-delegable. Where are we to find this list for clarification?
Next, conduct of roadblocks. Clause 6 of the Bill makes changes to the provision on conducting roadblocks. Under the amendments, it is much more explicit what drivers and Police officers can and cannot do. This is an improvement.
Sir, I have a query about the proposed section 26(6), which is new. This sub-section will make it an offence for pedestrians travelling in the direction of a roadblock to cross the barrier and subjects pedestrians to the officers’ instructions as well. Earlier, the Minister of State explained that one of the targets for this provision are car drivers who attempt to abandon their cars and escape on foot. Could he clarify whether there are other categories of pedestrians who are being envisioned by this new provision?
Finally, Police powers to Commercial Affairs Officers (CAOs) and Special Constabulary. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill propose to expand the powers of CAOs and Special Police Officers (SPOs). These clauses will empower these officers not just to do investigations but to exercise all Police powers, including the power of arrest without warrant, and have similar powers of search, forced entry and so on.
From my understanding, CAD has had Police officers attached to it since it was formed. This arrangement was made precisely because the CAO’s powers were limited; when it was time to do raids, the Police officers attached to CAD would accompany the investigators in charge to exercise their full powers. My understanding is that this arrangement has worked for many years.
Sir, may I ask what has motivated the change to give CAOs and SPOs full Police powers now? Is this due to manpower shortage issues or some other operational reason?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Police Force (Amendment) Bill will enable the SPF to continue to keep Singapore safe and secure in an increasingly complex operating environment. On the whole, I do support the Bill. However, there are certain queries or concerns I have which I will put forth.
Firstly, I have some concerns for section 17 which empowers the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner to delegate their powers to non-Police personnel in leadership positions within SPF if they are unable to carry out their duties. Currently, the Commissioner may only delegate his and the Deputy Commissioner's powers to Police officers in leadership positions within SPF. Non-Police personnel may not have the same experiences as a Police officer. Therefore, I would like to clarify in what instances the Minister of State envisages the need to execute section 17.
Secondly, I would like to refer to section 26, which allows forced entry in order to protect the life, health or safety of a person. I feel this is especially pertinent and important in domestic violence cases where the victim may be in imminent danger. Just in January this year, the Minister of State for Home Affairs Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim had said there was a 10% increase in family violence cases every month between April and December last year. Having this amendment will add another layer of protection to the victims as it allows the Police officers to render help immediately as time may be of the essence in such cases.
However, I would still call for caution when executing forced entry. There should be clear guidelines on what is considered a reasonable situation for it and all officers should be suitably trained before being able to exercise these powers. Limits should be clearly stated. This may be particularly important in domestic violence cases where it is not clear or easy to determine if a crime is being committed in the premises.
Additionally, in cases of forced entry, there may be circumstances in which there may be damage to the premises, or instances when the forced entry is actually unwarranted. I would, therefore, like to clarify if there is proper recourse available to the premise owner in such cases.
Thirdly, I welcome the fact that forced entry is not applicable to persons who may be attempting suicide. I do agree that these are very complex and, possibly, emotionally-charged situations. Officers who do not understand the ramifications of forcing entry into premises occupied by a suicidal person may run the risk of making matters worse. The person they are trying to help may end up seriously injured or dead, with the officer as a contributing factor, intentionally or otherwise.
For example, in February, officers had to force their way into a Toa Payoh flat after a 64-year-old man locked himself in his room and threatened to commit suicide. The man charged towards the officers and allegedly stabbed a Police officer in the thigh.
I would like to clarify, though, whether units, such as the Crisis Negotiation Unit, are, today, already empowered to force entry to premises in attempted suicide cases, given that attempted suicide has been decriminalised since 1 January 2020. And if they do have the requisite powers, what sort of legal protections are afforded to them in the event their actions lead to undesirable consequences for the suicidal individual?
Lastly, for section 120A, which relates to the granting of permission for the sale or manufacture of Police uniform or insignia, may I suggest that the word "written" be inserted before the word "permission" in the revised section, meaning the section should be amended to read, "has the written permission of the Commissioner" for clarity and transparency of procedure?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all in all, I believe the amendments will allow the Police to carry out their functions more effectively and, therefore, I support the Bill.
Before ending, I would also like to congratulate the Singapore Police Force on celebrating their 200th Anniversary. May they continue their good work for many more years to come.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the empowerment of our officers in order to achieve more efficient response to emergencies and assist people in distress. This measure will help to save lives and prevent tragedies.
I have been concerned about the safety of Police officers on duty at roadblocks which are necessary to deter drink-driving, illegally-modified vehicles and associated offences.
I have some questions. In the last five years, how many roadblock operations were there and how many offenders had been caught?
Will the empowerment of the APFs be helpful in supporting more roadblock operations at problematic road segments? I am referring to those which many residents provide feedback about, particularly speeding and noisy modified vehicles.
Would the Ministry consider allowing APFs to carry out such operations independently so as to achieve a greater deterrent effect?
In addition, will the Police look into more transportable and solid barriers to minimise the risk to the lives of the Police on duty at roadblocks and to deter dash-throughs, such as by putting up impact absorbers used by contractors on highways while carrying out construction works?
Will such operations be effective against motorcyclists who have more avenues to evade the roadblocks?
I would also like to ask if the Police will equip all the staff and officers, including SPOs and CAOs, with cameras and recorders. The records should be kept independently for safekeeping as evidence to prevent wrongful accusations and misuse. Such information shall not be shared, unless with permission and when needed to respond to fake news and wrongful accusations. Safeguarding of these recordings is also necessary to prevent cyberattacks and manipulation that could jeopardise the safety of operations.
While SPF is provided with the power to retain the services of Police officers in times of crises, it should also be provided with an alternative for such officers to be redeployed to other appropriate services. This is because commitment and dedication are required to maintain the integrity and efficiency of operations during a crises. Officers should be able to address an appeal board for reviews of their cases.
With that, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Police Force for keeping Singapore safe.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Police Force (Amendment) Bill introduces, inter alia, new provisions as regards our APFs. I will cover three areas as regards these provisions. The first is the provisions to do with tightening control over the controllers of APFs. The second is with regards to advertising for security services by APFs. The third is the introduction of a special administrative order or other order that the Minister may make under certain circumstances.
Sir, I declare at this juncture my interest as the President of the Security Association Singapore.
Sir, the first set of amendments are in the new section 88 and tightens controls over the controllers of APFs such that any person who comes in, between 5% and 25% control of an APF must notify the Minister, and a controller above 25% control of an APF must seek prior approval from the Minister. Sir, I support these changes. Our APFs are an extension of the Singapore Police Force and it is critical to ensure that there is accountability to the Minister for Home Affairs as regards control, so as to ensure that our APFs are not diverted from their missions.
A second area is the introduction as a new section 86A of restrictions on advertising, where only an APF may carry on the functions of an APF and advertise or, in any other way, hold out that it carries on or is willing to carry on the functions of an APF. This is an important new section, which also provides sufficiently heavy penalties for offenders.
On this particular amendment, Sir, I have a point of clarification. Some of our APFs, like Certis and AETOS are both employers of armed APFs and owners of security agencies that carry out unarmed services, but which bear their same logo and same name. In this regard, APFs must exercise caution in how they advertise and hold out their non-APF businesses in such manner that there is no conflation between their APF business and non-APF business. MHA and the Commissioner may wish to consider how to ensure this, perhaps through the promulgation of guidelines or further regulations.
The third set of amendments introduces under the New Division 1C of Part IX, a Special Administration Order or other order to transfer management of an APF from an employer to the Commissioner or anyone appointed by the Minister. This can be done in situations where the employer is unable to pay its debts, during a public emergency, or when the Minister deems it in the public interest. This new proviso ensures that the provision of essential security services remains unhindered and coordinated across employers of APFs, especially in view of the central role that our APFs have played in our COVID-19 response, which I will elaborate on.
Sir, these amendments proposed in the Bill are timely and important to ensure our APFs' continued ability to contribute to the safety and security of Singapore and Singaporeans.
The utility of our APFs was made apparent recently, as Certis took up duties urgently needed for the issuance, enforcement and execution of quarantine orders and quarantine operations of the Ministry of Health (MOH). These services included administration of quarantine orders to Persons under Quarantine (PUQs) and the enforcement of such orders as directed by MOH.
In a recent article in June 2021 by Yahoo, several persons affected by such orders described the effort as "disorganised" and officers as "unhelpful" and who caused frustration and confusion amidst PUQs.
Sir, our APOs have worked hard to transition and learn new skills to take on these new COVID-19-specific tasks and it is important that we acknowledge the difficulty of carrying out, at short notice, what can be accurately described as a herculean task. I thus urge Singaporeans to be empathetic when interacting with our officers as they go about carrying out their duties in this regard. I was also happy to read in that same Yahoo article that MOH acknowledged the concerns raised and said it would continue to improve communications between the various agencies involved, including Certis.
Alongside Certis, AETOS and SATS, APOs also stepped up in our battle against COVID-19, being deployed at various locations across the island, including Government quarantine facilities, floating hotels under the Maritime and Port Authority, airports, military camps and high-risk areas like the red migrant worker dormitories last year. Such high-risk locations meant that officers had to don full personal protective equipment for their entire 12-hour shifts, as they assisted with temperature checks, social distancing measures and escorting workers who had tested positive.
Sir, in peacetime, our APFs are equally busy keeping us safe and secure. They are part of the private security industry and have been situated on the frontlines, engaging in traffic and crowd control, event security, providing remote surveillance and enforcing security rules and regulations. Furthermore, they are strategically relied on to provide protective security for many important and sensitive Government and civilian institutions, such as at our airports, naval installations and checkpoints. While some APFs provide extremely specialised services, as private entities, they are freed from various obligations and restrictions and can operate flexibly and competitively. This is precisely why, Sir, it is extremely important that we ensure that there are sufficient controls over the employers of APFs or the controllers of APFs.
Sir, as front-facing personnel on the ground, our APOs sometimes face abuse from members of the public. In December last year, an APO was headbutted several times by a member of the public. In January this year, another APO was punched on the head while carrying out safe distancing checks. I am heartened that swift action was taken and, appropriately, heavy punishment meted out.
In this regard, Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all our APOs for carrying out their duties diligently and professionally during this pandemic and, even before that, to keep Singapore secure and orderly. I trust we will see our APOs and, for that matter, our security officers, increasingly not just as partners of the Home Team but as part of the Home Team.
Sir, our APFs are an armed and highly recognisable form of authority in Singapore. Due to their professionalism and hard work over the decades, our APFs and APOs are respected and trusted by Singaporeans. We must not take this for granted. In this regard, today's amendments to strengthen control over the APFs to ensure their continued operations as going concerns and that they stay true to their mission are timely and welcomed. I also welcome the other amendments that strengthen our Police Force. Sir, I support the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The amendments will enable SPF to continue keeping Singapore safe and secure amidst an increasingly complex operating environment. I am in support of the amendments. However, I would like to raise three clarifications: One, more clarity on the power to enter any place in case of an emergency; two, the delegation of Commissioner of Police (CP) and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) powers; and three, protecting officers from liability for acts done in good faith.
Firstly, it is important for us to update and equip our Police officers with the necessary powers so that they can respond swiftly in order to protect and save lives. As such, it is appropriate that we do allow our Police officers to enter any place, in case of medical emergency, to protect persons from injury or death. This would allow our Police officers the necessary access in situations where lives may be at stake. I would like to clarify on the definition of a "medical emergency". What constitutes a medical emergency? And how would a Police officer assess the medical emergency behind locked doors?
Secondly, the CP is a respected public officer who wields considerable authority and is appointed by none other than our own President. Currently, the CP may only delegate his and the DCP's powers to Police officers in leadership positions within SPF. However, with the new amendments, the CP is empowered to delegate CP and DCP powers to civilian officers in leadership positions within SPF. In his opening statement, Minister of State Desmond Tan had shared that one instance in which the CP may consider delegating his power is when the CP delegates his or her power to the Director of Commercial Affairs to issue SOPs. Can the Minister clarify on the type of powers which the CP cannot delegate to civilian officers?
Will the CP or DCP delegate the power to investigate scams, financial or cybercrimes, given the increase in the number of such crimes which may require a different skillset from the traditional policing? Do we have a shortage of this skillset within our current men in blue and how do we ensure that delegating these powers do not dilute the investigative capability of our Police from solving scams, financial or cybercrimes that are getting increasingly complicated?
The amendment also seeks to "Make explicit the protection for Police officers, Special Police officers (SPOs), Commercial Affairs officers (CAOs), Intelligence Officers and Forensic Specialists from liability for acts and omissions done in good faith and with reasonable care." Currently, our officers rely on the defence of necessity under common law. The amendment seeks to codify and enhance existing protection for our officers in their execution of the Police Force Act (PFA) or any other written law. This will allow them to carry out their lawful duties with greater assurance. Nevertheless, officers may still be taken to task and face disciplinary actions or even charged for criminal offences if they are found to have acted inappropriately.
Given the recent false allegations on social media against our Police Force in the recent months, it underscores the importance of protecting our men in blue in the course of their duty. An officer faces many important decisions daily. An officer, for example, who has been dispatched to a road traffic accident and is the first officer at the scene, has only a split second to decide on what to do next. While awaiting the arrival of paramedics, the officer, having been trained in CPR, may need to provide first-aid to the victim. While administering CPR and trying to resuscitate the victim through chest compressions, the officer may have cracked the victim's ribs. The victim may or may not have survived, but should we not protect our officer for acting in good faith and using as much care as he possibly could at that moment?
The last few weeks also saw an example where a shirtless man was acting aggressively towards our Police officers. The officers were unable to calm the man down, he continued to behave aggressively and, finally, tried to attack our officers. At that point, there was no other option for our officers but to tase the person. What if the individual who was tased had died due to a pre-existing medical condition? Should the officer not be protected from liability? It stands to reason that if the officer had acted in good faith and followed all the rules of engagement and SOPs, he should not be personally liable in these instances. This amendment would undoubtedly protect and reassure our Police officers as they go about their duties. Should this assurance be extended to our Prison wardens and other officers in the Home Team, too?
While we increase the protection to our officers, we must never allow errant officers who act inappropriately to hide behind this. Hence, the protection from liability in the act of good faith must be balanced with stiffer penalties if this is abused. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is important for us to equip our Police officers with the necessary powers so that they can respond swiftly in order to protect and save lives. As such, it is appropriate that we do allow Police officers to enter any place in case of medical emergencies, to protect persons from injury or death. I would like to seek clarification on the definition of a "medical emergency". What constitutes a medical emergency? And how would a Police officer assess the medical emergency behind locked doors?
This amendment also seeks to protect Police officers from liability for acts and omissions done in good faith. This will allow our officers to carry out their duties with greater assurance. Given the recent false allegations on social media in the recent months against our Police force, it underscores the importance of protecting our Police officers in the course of their duty.
For example, an officer who has been dispatched to a road traffic accident has only a split second to decide on what to do next. While waiting for the arrival of paramedics, the officer may need to provide first aid to the victim. While administering CPR, the officer may have cracked the victim’s ribs. The victim may or may not have survived, but should we not protect our officer for acting in good faith and using as much care as he possibly could at that moment?
This amendment will, undoubtedly, protect and reassure our officers as they carry out their duties. Can this assurance be extended to prison wardens and other officers in the Home Team, too?
As we enhance and strengthen protection for our officers, we must never allow irresponsible and errant officers to escape punishment. These officers should be fined and disciplined or prosecuted for criminal offences. If they are found to have acted inappropriately, they should face stiffer penalties.
(In English): Allow me to conclude in English, Sir. The amendments will enable SPF to continue keeping Singapore safe and secure amidst an increasingly complex operating environment. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all our Police officers for keeping us safe. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, Sir, I support the Bill.
Leader.
PAPERCUTS