Registration of Births and Deaths Bill

Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Registration of Births and Deaths Bill. Simplifying the registration process and digitalising it will bring more convenience to our people. In order to become a Smart City, it is necessary to digitalise the births and deaths registration process. This will strengthen Government agencies' capability in identification and verification to provide better services for the people.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will still keep a hard copy of the registration records just in case, for example, the electronic system fails or if data is lost. The latest technologies, such as blockchain, can prevent theft and hacking, ensuring that electronic data be stored permanently and securely. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider adding an extra layer of protection to our registration records through different data retention methods.

I support the new regulation proposed by the Ministry to make it mandatory for persons responsible to report births and deaths to the authorities, doctors or the Police as soon as possible.

Being born in our country does not mean that the babies will automatically acquire citizenship. I would like to check if this policy will change and I would also like to ask the Minister how many foreign babies are born here each year and how many of them are granted citizenship. So far, how many newborns are not registered or abandoned by their parents each year? Does our country have institutions or facilities to accept abandoned babies?

Finally, I would like to ask the Ministry how many death registration applications are received each year to register the death of persons who are missing or whose whereabouts are unknown as a result of accidents or natural disasters.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, coming on the heels of the recent publication of Census 2020, it is important for relevant Government agencies to be updated and have accurate records such as the registration of both births and deaths in Singapore. These records assist in ensuring that our population data is accurate and allows us to use this information to plan and enact policies to respond to the needs of our population.

That said, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister of State for Home Affairs on certain provisions of this Bill in four areas.

One, the present Bill seeks to streamline and digitise the death registration process. The new process requires a medical practitioner to certify and submit the death of a person online following which the death certificate is issued digitally. I also understand that the doctor or hospital can assist in printing the certificate for families who have difficulties accessing the digital certificates. Could the Minister of State clarify if this new process will result in increased fees compared to the current process since, for example, the doctor will now have to print the certificate or is it envisaged for it to be without charge?

Two, I also note that according to the Second Schedule in the current Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, there is a listing of fees such as persons are required to pay a $40 fee for certified extract of birth or death from the register in Forms L and M respectively. May I also clarify with the Minister of State if there will be similar fees if families at a later stage want to get a digital extract?

Third, the Bill also requires in some cases under clause 22(2)(d) the duty for reporting of a death to fall on persons that may not be at all related or associated to the deceased, therefore, there is this undue burden, failing which the person will be considered guilty of an offence and fined up to $1,500 and/or imprisonment of up to a month. The Minister of State had earlier mentioned about unnatural death briefly. So, for the clarity of the public, can the Minister of State clarify if, for example, a person on a morning jog finds a dead body and calls the Police, would the person still be liable to report the death to a medical practitioner under this section? Will alerting the death to the authorities suffice to discharge such a person from the duties the Bill now appears to place on that person?

And four, I have come across a resident whose parents passed away overseas and have not been able to get the death certificate even after he claimed the relevant agencies had assisted him to contact their counterparts in the foreign country. The body was not brought back to Singapore and he, therefore, is unable to bring closure to their estate matters after many years.

Can the Minister of State clarify if the process to prevent fraud for such cases has been streamlined and if the Registrar-General will have the discretion to register a death that has occurred outside Singapore? Mdm Deputy Speaker, in concluding, I support this Bill.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

(In English): Notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I would like to seek some clarifications. On the registration of deaths, I have four clarifications.

Firstly, I share the same concerns raised by hon Member Mr Derrick Goh on costs. Would there be any safeguards against extra charges or costs to be borne since doctors are now not only certifying deaths, but they are also helping to submit the certification online?

Secondly, on categories of responsible persons to report the death under section 22, would the definition of an occupier also extend to persons who have the power or access to such premises, for example, landlords or warehouse owners?

Thirdly, in cases where there is more than one responsible person, section 22(4) discharges responsibility of every other responsible persons by the compliance of just one responsible person, even if there was an earlier opportunity to report by that other person. Would it be useful for ICA to still retain some powers to investigate non-reporting offences in cases where there are more than one responsible person who can report? For example, take the case if person A could have made the report earlier in time but deliberately did not do so and, subsequently, person B reported the death. By section 22(4), person A would have been absolved from liability, notwithstanding that his deliberate omission goes against the mandatory requirement of reporting "as soon as practicable after the death" and the intent of the Bill to promote expeditious reporting.

On the registration of births, I welcome the amendments to make it mandatory for all births to be reported. Currently, all hospital births, or children brought to the hospital within 24 hours of being born, are reported but it is not mandatory for births outside of hospitals to be reported to the authorities. Now, almost anyone, including parents or a proxy on behalf of the parents, can provide the child's birth particulars to ICA for registration within 42 days from the date of birth. I have two clarifications in this regard.

Firstly, I seek the same clarifications I sought before on the categories of responsible persons to report deaths here. Similarly, for the reporting of births.

Secondly, I have compared section 7(2)(e) on the reporting of births in any other places with section 22(2)(d) on reporting of deaths in any other places. For reporting of births in any other places, the responsibility falls squarely on the parents only. However, for reporting of deaths in any other places, the responsibility falls on, inter alia, every relative of the deceased person who knows of the death. What is MHA’s rationale for this distinction? Can MHA also consider placing the obligation of reporting of birth on a relative of the parents who knows or have knowledge of such birth? This will be useful in situations where the parents themselves breach such registration requirements and where the birth did not occur in the premises which are occupied by relatives.

My last clarification is a general one on ICA's own resourcing. Under the new rules, ICA officers would take over investigation of offences relating to the registration of births and deaths. Would ICA be forming a new department in this regard? If not, under which department would such investigations fall under?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it provides greater ease of death registrations and it is a step in the right direction to mandate registration of births.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and thoughtful feedback on this Bill.

To summarise, this Bill will bring about three key benefits: first, the Bill will provide greater convenience to Singaporeans through streamlined registration processes; second, the Bill will cater for an expanded scope of registration scenarios; third, the Bill will strengthen ICA's enforcement powers.

Please allow me to address the questions from the Members in turn. I thank Members for their support of the digitalisation of our registration regime. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim said that the new digitalised process would reduce errors. This will indeed be the case. This will also save time for members of the public and the public sector. We estimate that a total of about 18,000 hours per year can be saved by members of the public and the relevant Government agencies from not having to perform over-the-counter death registrations.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether we will still keep a hard copy of the registration records in case the electronic system fails and the data is lost. While ICA will not be keeping hard copy records for registrations done digitally, measures are taken to ensure that the data of the digital records are backed up at alternate secured sites and retrievable in the event of system failures.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Derrick Goh asked whether there will be any extra charges or costs to be borne. ICA will not be charging extra fees. The public hospitals have also committed to not charging extra fees for death registration under the streamlined process. While the Government is not able to dictate the fees charged by private hospitals and general practitioners who make house visits to certify deaths, we note that private hospitals and general practitioners will continue to use the same ICA e-service, which they are already using currently to certify deaths online. Hence, we do not expect the costs incurred by the private hospitals and general practitioners to increase.

Mr Derrick Goh asked if fees would be imposed for extracts from the registers, given that they will be issued digitally. To clarify, the digitalisation of documents will start with birth, death and stillbirth certificates that will be issued when the new Act comes into force. The issuance of digital extracts for births, deaths and stillbirths that are registered before the new Act comes into force will be introduced in a later phase. Regardless of the format of the extract, there is still a need to recover the costs for providing this service. ICA is reviewing the fee amount. If the costs have come down, the fees will be revised accordingly.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim raised questions regarding the categories of responsible persons and their duties to report births and deaths under the Bill.

Under clause 7, where a birth occurs in any premises other than in a hospital, the child's parents and the occupier of the premises who knows of the birth in the premises are responsible for the reporting of the birth. Under the Bill, an occupier for any premises includes a person who has control of, or is managing, the premises. For example, the management of a mall who knows of a birth in the mall, or the owner of an apartment who knows of a birth in the apartment, will be responsible for reporting the birth. In most cases, we would expect the parents to be responsible for reporting the birth.

Under clause 22, where a death occurs in any premises other than in a hospital, the relative of the deceased person who is present at the death, and the occupier of the premises who knows of the death in the premises, are responsible for reporting the death. In most cases, we would expect the relatives to be responsible for reporting the death.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim highlighted that for births that occur in a place other than hospitals, premises and conveyances, the responsibility falls squarely on the parents only. However, for the reporting of deaths in any other place, the responsibility falls on, inter alia, every relative of the deceased person who knows of the death. He asked for MHA's rationale for this difference. He also asked whether the relatives of a child should also be included as responsible persons who should report the child's birth under clause 7(2).

The situations surrounding births and deaths are different. For a newborn child, the parents are the responsible persons who will need to care for the child. Hence, they are legally required to report the birth. Under the current Act, ICA occasionally encounters birth registrations by persons other than the parents, such as a relative of the child. While ICA will continue to accept reports of births from relatives who are aware of the births, we do not want to burden the relatives with the legal obligation to report or be penalised for failing to report the birth. This responsibility falls on the child's parents.

For a deceased person passing away in any other place, the circumstances of death and the persons who may know of the death may be vastly different for each case. A deceased person could have died alone or in the company of a relative or a non-related person. Hence, the provision under clause 22(2)(d) provides for a wider scope of responsible persons than that for births under clause 7(2)(e).

As for the scenario mentioned by Mr Derrick Goh of a jogger who finds a dead body, the death will fall under the purview of the Coroners Act as a reportable death since it is likely that the death occurred under suspicious circumstances. For a reportable death, the jogger is obligated under section 5 of the Coroners Act to report it to a Police officer as soon as possible. As the death is not under the scope of clause 22 of the Bill, the jogger does not need to report the death to a medical practitioner.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked if it would be useful for ICA to still retain some powers to investigate non-reporting offences in cases where there are multiple responsible persons who can report. Under clause 22(4), as long as a responsible person reports a death, the duty of every other responsible person is discharged. This is because once a report has been made and a medical practitioner is alerted to the death, the purpose of the reporting requirement is met. However, if no responsible person reports the death, all responsible persons, who do not have a reasonable excuse, shall be guilty of the offence of failing to report the death. This provides sufficient deterrence against the failure to report a death while achieving the aim of ensuring that each death is reported by at least one responsible person.

To answer Mr Derrick Goh's query on overseas deaths, yes, the RG may register the overseas death of a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident under clause 28 if the death is not registered overseas. This is provided that the body of the deceased person is brought to Singapore and an application is made by a relative of the deceased person within three months of the death, accompanied by a document issued by a medical practitioner that certifies the cause of death and other death particulars of the deceased person.

Mr Gan asked about death registration for missing persons. In the past five years, the Police received an average of about 1,700 missing persons reports per year. The next-of-kin of a missing person who wishes to have the missing person presumed by law to be dead will need to apply to the Court for the necessary order. This process is governed by the Evidence Act and will remain so. Once the next-of-kin obtains the Court order, they can inform ICA to update the person's status in its system. This information will be shared with other agencies to facilitate other post-death matters. ICA will also issue a letter of acknowledgement to the next-of-kin when they report the presumption of death to ICA. In the past five years, ICA encountered an average of five reports per year in relation to such Court orders.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about newborn children whose births are not registered by the child's parents or who have been abandoned by their parents. In 2020, 72 births were not registered within 42 days. This makes up less than 0.2% of total births in Singapore. Out of these 72 births, most parents do come forward to register the births after reminders from ICA. Due to ICA's efforts to trace the parents, the number of cases of parents who fail to register their child's birth is very low. Nevertheless, the Bill will provide powers for the RG to register such births on his own volition when the parents fail to do so despite ICA's efforts to contact and remind them.

As for abandoned babies, such cases are relatively rare in Singapore. MSF's Child Protection Service will initially place the abandoned baby under its foster care service. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the child may subsequently be returned to the parents or be put up for adoption.

Mr Louis Ng asked how ICA will follow up with the responsible persons for a child in cases with incomplete birth particulars. ICA will do its part to contact and remind the responsible persons. But, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the responsible persons, such as parents, to register their child.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the naming of a child whose birth is registered by the RG on his own volition. The RG will give the child an identifier which will be a single-worded name. The responsible persons for the child can subsequently apply to the RG to replace the identifier with another name within seven years of the child's birth. The responsible persons can, of course, do so much earlier.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether birth registration and citizenship will continue to be independent of each other. The answer is yes. All births in Singapore have to be reported and registered, regardless of the nationalities of the child's parents. However, the policy remains that a birth that is registered in Singapore does not automatically confer Singapore Citizenship on the child. In the past three years, about 17% of total births in Singapore are those of children born to parents who are both foreigners and, therefore, do not qualify for Singapore Citizenship by birth. There is also a small number of children born to at least one Singaporean parent but are not granted Singapore Citizenship for reasons such as the parents not being legally married at the time of the child's birth. In 2020, such births make up less than 0.15% of total births in Singapore.

Mr Louis Ng asked about children who are stateless. To clarify, children are only classified as stateless when their parents fail to obtain citizenship – Singapore or otherwise – for the child after the child's birth. A child is not classified as stateless at the time of the birth, nor at the point of the birth registration. It is the responsibility of the parents to obtain the appropriate citizenship for their child. ICA does not keep track of the citizenship status of non-citizen children.

Mr Louis Ng asked about children born to single unwed mothers. Due to privacy reasons, ICA does not specifically share information of such births with MSF.

Sir, let me address some of the questions asked by the hon Member Mr Leon Perera. He raised a few issues. One is about surnames. For surnames, we can have double-barrelled surnames of different races. On what kinds of surnames are not allowed, we follow the same guidelines as for names. So, as long as names are not offensive like "Stupid" or "Satan", then it will be alright. We are very mindful of that because we want to protect the dignity of the child.

For double-barrelled race, parents are allowed to register as long as they have different registered races; they do not need to be across the CMIO categories. This change can be done online for those that were previously registered with a single-barrelled race.

On the suggestion on having more ethnic characters or multiple types of ethnic characters, it is something that we can look into. However, as you know, there are some constraints that we have to take into consideration like space availability on the NRIC and the birth certificate.

The Member also asked about whether we have engaged the undertakers. Essentially, we have been working very closely with the stakeholders. It is not only about engaging them, we receive feedback from the different stakeholders at different points in time, including from the public. So, we will continue to engage them even after the Bill is passed. Essentially, it is a continuous engagement and we are mindful that this is about birth and death, which are very sensitive. We want to give as much convenience as possible to the families. We often receive feedback from the public and the undertakers. We will continue to engage all these stakeholders.

The Member raised issues relating to potential delays by medical practitioners certifying death at home under the new death registration process. Essentially, the medical practitioner will be using the same online system as today. So, there is no change. We have not heard much of an issue about delay, so we feel that it will be business as usual. Nevertheless, we will continue to keep a look-out to see if there is any delay.

The Member also raised issues relating to the abuse of NRICs of the deceased. For now, we do not see that as a big issue. We will monitor. In fact, we have high penalties for this, and I think that in itself is a deterrent for people who want to use this. Under the National Registration Act, anyone abusing NRICs is liable for a fine up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to 10 years or both.

The Member also asked for data and trends of mixed parentage. I do not have the data on hand now. The Member may want to submit a Parliamentary Question.

The Member also asked about those who are non-digitally savvy. The relatives of the deceased may request the hospital or medical practitioner to help to print out a copy of the digital death certificate. Nevertheless, we will take note of this feedback.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure that everyone enjoys convenience as a result of this. In fact, when the Bill was first read, I received a lot of positive feedback from some of the stakeholders who are very involved in such an area. They shared with me that it is very much welcomed, especially for the death registration, as they find that it is something that will make it easier and will enhance the process of preparing for the post-death matters. We want to make it convenient for them. Birth is a celebration, and now, like what the Member shared earlier, it is about having all the different parentage, and I think it is about how we can continue to make ourselves relevant. We will continue this process.

I also want to cover an area raised by Mr Zhulkarnain. He asked whether ICA will be forming a new department to undertake the enforcement of the Bill. Investigation officers from ICA's existing Enforcement Division, which currently already investigates offences under Acts such as the Passports Act and National Registration Act, will be appointed as authorised registration officers to conduct searches and investigations into suspected offences under part 8 of the Bill. Therefore, ICA will not need to form a new department. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill will streamline and digitalise the birth, death and stillbirth reporting and registration processes. This will provide significantly greater convenience for the public, in particular, for deaths, when a person passes away, a medical practitioner will examine the body and certify the cause of death online. The death particulars are sent electronically to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, who will automatically register the death. The relatives of the deceased person no longer need to register the death at the hospital, a Neighbourhood Police Centre or Post, or ICA. The relative may then download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website.

Members asked whether there will be any extra charges or costs to be borne under the streamlined death registration process. ICA will not be charging extra fees. The public hospitals have also committed to not charging extra fees for death registration under the streamlined process. While the Government is not able to dictate the fees charged by private hospitals and general practitioners who make house visits to certify deaths, we note that private hospitals and general practitioners will continue to use the same ICA e-service which they currently already use to certify deaths online. Hence, we do not expect the costs incurred by private hospitals and general practitioners to increase.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I am confident that this Bill will provide greater convenience for Singaporeans when dealing with births, deaths and stillbirths. With that, I beg to move.