Review of Sentencing Framework for Sexual and Hurt Offences

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the Statement. My query pertains to hurt offences. I take the Minister back to the debate when the Criminal Law Reform Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2019. There was a discussion amongst Members of how voluntarily causing hurt, being a non-arrestable offence, is dealt with by the Police. Then-Senior Parliamentary Secretary who at the round-up speech confirmed that Police do look at voluntarily causing hurt (VCH) offences in some broad classes – I do not think those were closed classes. These included road rage, secret society members, fighting, racial, religiously-aggravated VCH cases. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary then in the round-up speech mentioned that, I will quote what he said, "post-amendment we can assess if there is a need to create a more expedited framework for the resolution of other types of VCH cases and if this can be done without compromising due process or compromising the delivery of Police response to other more serious offences".

I would just like to confirm whether the Ministry has considered looking at VCH offences, the section 321 type of offences, the non-arrestable offences, in a more variated manner so that we can take expedited action in the appropriate cases.

Thank you. That question actually highlights one of the more involved discussions that MHA has been having, with me involved. Let me put it this way. Voluntarily causing hurt, as Mr Singh would know, it can cover a broad ambit. Let me give a couple of examples.

You are in a supermarket. Someone goes past you and push you. Let us leave out the sexual part of it – just two men. He pushed you aggressively. That is at one level. You did not feel hurt, nothing, but he should not have pushed you. You go and file a Police report.

On the other end of the scale, could be a more serious assault which does not result in grievous hurt – because then, it would be voluntarily causing grievous hurt – but nevertheless, leaves you in a state of shock.

It is quite clear the second category — I mean, we talk about Singapore being a safe society. My position to the Police has been that those sorts of cases, you want to be able to walk in the streets, feeling safe. You need to know that if there is that kind of conduct, that will end up in court. But if you start taking every assault to court, I do not think we are doing justice as a society either. Because you will get into a detailed involved assessment of intent, cause.

I think the intent of your question then and now, Mr Singh, is that the criminal law is not the best solution for these cases. It should be dealt with through other ways, without undermining the rule of law. We agree. There are some internal frameworks for the Police to try and assess that and deal with it. If the Police try to deal every single case of police report on voluntarily causing hurt, it would be an impossible situation. And I do not think we will be better off as a society either.

So, there is a framework to try and deal with this. Of course, people who are not happy, there are other routes, as the Member knows as well; through a magistrate's route as well.

If you want more details of how we work it, to the extent that it is possible to give it, because we do not want people gaming it either, I am happy to share the details.

I thank the Minister for his Statement. I think we certainly welcome the new framework. I have spoken on this on a number of occasions and I welcome the updates. Just one clarification I seek from the Minister. In the last two years, one of the questions that was raised is, quite a number of cases relate to those who have a position of trust with the victim. Just to rattle off some recent cases: teacher molests seven boys, former Secondary school teacher abuses 15-year-old students, Secondary school teacher molests boy in school lab, Primary school teacher molests 12-year-old boy and so on. You also have, recently: male nurse allegedly molests male patient, Statutory Board director outrages modesty of female subordinate, doctor at Mt E accused of molest against a female patient.

Many of these are in a position of trust. Would the Ministry consider further enhancing the sentencing framework and increase the penalties for those who not only cause hurt or sexually abuse the victim, but start out from a position of trust, so that we ensure that such crimes where the victim already feels a sense of comfort in the presence of the person, does not fall prey to such offences.

I thank the Member for the question. I mean he reeled off a list of cases where people have abused that position of trust to molest or otherwise hurt someone close to them.

Let me make the general point first. We are a low-crime society. Societal relationships, man's behaviour with man, these things happen everywhere. I do not want people to go away thinking that, in some way, in Singapore, it is more extreme. In fact, it is much lower. It is much lower because, as I have said before – and I think Senior Minister Teo might have, too – in Singapore, a few things are quite certain. When you have done wrong, you are likely to be investigated. Second, the investigations do not usually take very long. Third, if you are guilty, you are likely to be found guilty and you are likely to face the penalties because we start off from that framework. Also, on the whole, we have a highly law-and-order-based society. People obey the laws. I think we have managed to keep the criminal behaviour to a much smaller context than many other countries do. So, we start from a position which would be of some envy to most well-ordered societies.

With that, the specific question that Mr Yam has asked, these factors are already relevant, highly relevant, for sentencing. If you are in a position of trust, if you are a teacher, that is a very serious consideration that is taken into account in sentencing. So, there will be no question in the minds of people, if you are a teacher, if you are a doctor, you are in a position of fiduciary relationship where you have control or you have oversight over the other person and you take advantage, the Courts treat that very seriously, and we have reflected that approach quite clearly.

And that is, of course, without considering, if you are a professional, the professional bodies will have something to say. For doctors, the Medical Council will follow up. So, you will face both professional consequences and criminal consequences. So, I think we ought to be quite clear that being in a position of trust is a very material – in fact, central – consideration in enhancing penalties.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the Minister that we are starting from a position of strength. My question is in relation to the handout provided. At section 73, it says that there are enhanced penalties for offences against domestic workers, and that can be twice the maximum penalty.

My question here is really that it is good that we protect our foreign domestic workers because they are in a position of vulnerability. But I think that section 73 should be widened not just to include foreign domestic workers, but people who are in a position of vulnerability because of their employment. And that can expand beyond the FDW matrix. So, if we are, indeed, wanting to protect the vulnerable, then would a reconsideration of section 73 and the widening of it be considered in this review?

I thank Mr de Souza. I think the current position, we were quite deliberate that it should cover vulnerable victims. And in my speech now, as well as when I moved the amendments, the way we saw our society, what is happening, you have children who are vulnerable, you have domestic workers who are vulnerable and, in a fast-ageing society, you have senior citizens who are vulnerable, who are not able to take care of themselves, and you have intellectually-challenged people who are vulnerable. So, we have sought to define people in vulnerable categories; and offences against them, the penalties are much more severe. So, we have already gone down that route and the definition is quite comprehensive in terms of starting with what we mean by "vulnerable". So, all those categories I have mentioned are considered vulnerable.

We then added on another category that would not, in the usual sense, be considered vulnerable – girlfriends or people in an intimate partner relationship when they are subjected to violence. If you are in a marriage situation, the Women's Charter allows you to go and take an application, a Personal Protection Order (PPO). But if you are an unmarried partner, you cannot go and take a PPO under the Women's Charter because, by definition, it only applies to people who are married, spouses. So, we extended the protection to persons in an intimate partner relationship. So, if you abuse your girlfriend, now these enhanced penalties will apply to you, and your girlfriend can take out the appropriate orders under POHA, for example. So, we have covered vulnerable categories. But I will be happy to ask my Ministry to relook at it. But we were quite focused in the way our society was changing. Particularly, I was concerned about senior citizens who now are at homes, and elder abuse, and I felt that we ought to stiffen the law before it becomes prevalent.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister on what he said earlier regarding the policy that the AG in general will object to a rehabilitative sentence for certain kinds of offences. So, my first clarification on this is: is there going to be a change in the law to specifically provide that rehabilitative sentences will not be available to certain categories of offences?

My second clarification is: I think it is important also for the Minister to confirm that these moves in no way undermine prosecutorial discretion which is provided for under the Constitution. So, I would like him to confirm that, so that there is no misunderstanding on this point.

Thank you. On the first question that AG, AGC or prosecution will generally object in general, in fact, as I have said in my speech, for some time now, that has been the position of prosecution in general when it comes to sexual and hurt offences. They object to community-based sentencing or rehab-based sentencing, and they focus on deterrence and sending the message. I am re-emphasising and reaffirming that approach and saying that AGC will be even clearer in that approach hereafter.

On the second question whether this undermined prosecutorial discretion, absolutely not. I mean, as I have mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, you will have cases where individuals – intellectually-challenged, did not know what they were doing was right or wrong or on the margin – these are not matters that we can set out in broad terms here in Parliament, and AGC will have to decide, case by case, and the Courts will have to decide case by case. But what is important is that Parliament understands and affirms, and the Executive, my Ministry, puts before Parliament the Government's policy and this Ministerial Statement sets out the Government's policy for Singaporeans, which we put before Parliament that we will take a no-nonsense approach to sexual and hurt offences. Rehabilitation will not be the primary consideration. The primary considerations will be deterrence and prevention and sending the message clearly, and consistent with what I have articulated, as a fundamental tenet and value. So, it is for the Government to set out that policy. It is for Parliament to put that policy in law where it is not already in law. And I have said we will make amendments in three specific situations, and we set out what we believe should be the approach which is good for society as a whole. And that then has got to be the guidelines for AGC to apply in exercising their prosecutorial discretion. The discretion has got to have a framework to be applied; framework has got to be supplied by Parliament. And for the Courts, with their judicial independence to apply, the Courts also need a framework. So, that is the context to the Statement. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I think his unequivocal Statement, in relation to the fact that qualifications of an offender would not matter in relation to sentencing, will go a long way to assuage members of the public that he were concerned about the sentences imposed on offenders that the hon Minister mentioned.

My clarification is on the Sentencing Advisory Council. The hon Minister mentioned that his Ministries will be looking at this. May I ask whether the remit of the Advisory Council would extend to not just offences dealing with hurt or having sexual elements, but really to the entire spectrum of offences, so that members of the public would be able to be apprised as to the sentencing guidelines and this would improve access to justice as well.

The second clarification concerns the Attorney General's role. The hon Minister spoke about the case whereby the 22-year-old undergraduate strangled and I think injured his ex-girlfriend's eye as well. I note that, in that case, actually, there were two offences that he committed. The Attorney General, or rather, the Public Prosecutor applied for the criminal trespass charge to be taken into consideration for purpose of sentencing and I also understand that there was no appeal arising from the sentence. Given that the hon Minister mentioned, in answer to the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, that it has been a practice of the AGC to object to rehabilitative and community sentences in relation to such offences, why then was there not an appeal? And in relation to the offence that was taken into consideration, it was criminal trespass but, as I understand, the offence was that he broke into the house of the girlfriend, and the Penal Code has an aggravated form of offence. Housebreaking is an offence for which the offence is punishable by three years' sentence. So, may I understand what is the AGC policy in relation to such matters where there is hurt in the context of a relationship?

I thank Mr Murali Pillai for the questions. On the Sentencing Advisory Panel, the remit is being worked out. I think it makes sense for the remit to be covering beyond sexual and hurt offences, and that is the intention. Precisely which offences would be covered, I do not want to prejudge that at this point.

Second, specific to the facts of the 22-year-old undergraduate, under the criminal trespass charge that was taken into consideration, this goes directly into what Ms Sylvia Lim had asked. It is really not for me to second-guess and say, on specific cases, why the Attorney General's Chambers did or did not do something. That is a matter of discretion. But let me recall or put across the facts as I remember them.

I think Mr Murali Pillai will remember. It was a case where, yes, there was a break-in but the ex-girlfriend then spent some time talking to the young man. And, in fact, took him – if I recall correctly – to a part of the house. It may well be, if I were the prosecutor, I would look at it and I will say that that is not going to be an easy case, because, yes, there was initial trespass but was there subsequent consent? So, one has got to look at the facts carefully. There can be a variety of reasons why charges are taken into consideration.

Why was there no appeal? As I said, it was dealt with in accordance with the law at that point in time. Today, we have enhanced the penalty. For example, this would have been treated like an intimate partner violence case, where the penalty would be higher. The Courts imposed a sentence that was in line with the precedents at that point in time and AGC's assessment was that it was not going to be easy to challenge. I cannot be dealing with every specific discretion that AGC exercises.

Mr Speaker, I would really like to thank the Minister and the teams from MHA and MinLaw behind this review and for hearing the voices of many young women as well as the effort to engage and review the framework. I have three clarifications.

The first, from a victim-centric point of view. Other than the intention to amend the maximum penalties for three sexual offences, will the Government consider putting in place programmes and training to better ensure trauma literacy within the criminal justice system to safeguard the interest of victims of hurt and sexual offences?

Second, Sir, the trauma on victims can be irreversible. But I have spoken in this House about going beyond second chances and I have worked with young offenders and families with people incarcerated. I know that some offenders pay for a very long time, beyond their sentence, and society includes them too. I hope the Minister can elaborate more about how the sentencing principles of deterrence and rehabilitation to prevent future incidence of reoffending are balanced in the second proposal as the range of sexual and hurt offences is very wide. What do certain offences where rehabilitation will not be considered include?

My last point. It is very evident from heated discussions online that there is significant public interest in this space. What steps are being taken to educate the public and, in particular, youths about consent and power dynamics in sexual interactions and what role can the media and public more responsibly play to elevate the conversation? I appreciate the sentencing guideline and just hope that it can be made friendly to the layman so that it is easily disseminated, for example, by social media.

I thank Ms Nadia Ahman Samdin for those questions. Let me start off with one point that I think we should all be very clear about. We can express our views set out in the Parliament through legislation – tough laws – but let us not walk out of this Chamber with the belief that the laws alone or even the enforcement of them is going to prevent all offences. No society works on that basis.

The one thing I have learned in 30 years in the law, in one way or another, is that the laws are there, the majority of the people do not need laws to keep them straight and a small minority who will be tempted, many of them will not be tempted as long as they know that the laws are tough and there will be enforcement. But there will always be, regardless of what steps you put in to prevent fraud, what steps you put in to prevent criminal action, there will always be a group that breaks the laws.

Having the laws is important for the bulk of society but let us be clear – there will be people who will break them and we will have to deal with it. That is the starting point. Whether it is laws against sexual offences or laws against fraud or laws against speeding; any of which.

With that, how do we take into account victims' interests and protect them? You have victim impact statements. They can be submitted to the Courts so that the Courts are very informed about the impact of the offence on the victim, and the emotional and physical trauma that has been suffered. I have talked about it earlier. In order to protect the identity of the alleged victim, gag orders can be made. I have given you in my Ministerial Statement a framework in such cases on how the victim could be protected from some types of cross examination, from having to face the accused, from having screens to protect them. Of course, in addition, there are Protection Orders available and Expedited Protection Orders available under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) and the Women's Charter, as appropriate.

We are also exploring, we are talking to the Courts about the possibility of recording video-recorded interviews of victims and then, using those videos as evidence in court in lieu of examination-in-chief. And we think that that might help reduce the victim's trauma from having to recount again in court the ordeal the person went through. We are trying to reduce the number of times a person has got to talk about the ordeal that he or she went through; usually a "she".

But when we speak about all of this, do not forget the presumption of innocence and the accused's right to a fair trial and have the allegations tested in court. So, never forget that.

Second, Ms Nadia Ahman Samdin also asked about the role of media and members of the public. In order to have meaningful discourse, you need a better understanding. To raise the level of understanding, we are, for example, publishing the guide on sentencing that I spoke about in my Statement. We are also talking about the Sentencing Advisory Panel issuing guidelines. But, of course, I think we must be realistic. Not every member is going to check out the MHA website on guidelines and read them. I think a few days ago I recall Mr Pritam Singh saying that he did not realise that I had made nine speeches. I am realistic about how many people read my speeches and visit the MHA website. But we will put it out and we will try and get people to understand. Of course, lawyers will be better informed as well.

The media, I think they play a very important role, in helping the public get a fuller and better understanding of the process and what is the framework. But I think one point to which I do not really have a solution is that individual cases, partially reported, without the full facts, tend to invoke a lot of passion, excite a lot of passion, and then people form views. We have to be careful about the cases being trialed in the court of public opinion. Or there being decisions which are pushed upon by the public with not a full understanding either of the law or the facts. Because not the full facts are out in the media most of the time. We have to allow judges to carry on and do their jobs.

But public opinion is important and for the Parliament to be aware of the public sense of right and wrong is also important because that allows us to calibrate and make sure our laws accurately reflect where the balance ought to lie. Now, we ought to decide that – in the best interests of the public. But public viewpoints and public opinions are relevant in coming to that assessment.

Ms Nadia Ahman Samdin also asked about the balance between deterrence and rehabilitation in sentencing. Most of my speech – quite a lot of my speech – was targeted at dealing with that. Again, it is for the Parliament to decide, depending on the offence, what the balance ought to be.

It should depend on age. That is why in my Ministerial Statement I spoke about adult offenders being treated more severely. You would treat a 15-year-old differently from a 25-year-old or a 23-year-old. So, we need to look those factors. We need to look at the degree of active consideration of what the person was going to do, the culpability, the seriousness of the offence.

For younger offenders, the general approach – the dominant factor – ought to be rehabilitation. Because they do not have the full maturity of adults and they are still in their formative years. The chances of reforming are higher.

But other sentencing principles, like deterrence and proportionate punishment, may take precedence over rehabilitation, even for younger offenders, where the offence is serious, the harm caused is severe, the offender in our assessment is hardened or recalcitrant, or the conditions that make rehabilitation options viable do not exist.

Say, a young offender has committed rape. The Courts may impose imprisonment and caning instead of a rehabilitative sentence like probation or reformative training, because of the nature of the offence, its severity and the likelihood or the possibility that this may happen again and other people need to be protected.

For adult offenders, I have explained, for sexual and hurt offences, rehabilitation would not be the dominant consideration unless there is a strong propensity to reform and specific factors strongly point to rehabilitation. But I have also said, "I am a person with bright prospects" or "I am an undergraduate who is going to do well in life" – those are not very relevant factors. I have been quite clear about that.

I thank the Minister for Law for that very clear statement. As an advocate to end domestic violence, I really appreciate the statements made. I have two clarifications. One on the guidelines themselves, second on the composition of this advisory panel.

On the guidelines, I understand that the guidelines are non-binding but highly persuasive. In the UK, they amended the Evidence Act to make those guidelines binding upon the courts but the courts can depart from them if it is in the course of justice to do so. But if I may offer another alternative position used in the Victorian courts, where the panel themselves can be invited by the court of appeal to provide some views before the sentencing of a particular case. I say this so that we do not shut out any possibility or flexibility to cater to evolving societal needs and specific individual cases.

On the second part, the composition of the panel, I ask the Ministry to consider a diversity, both in terms of gender and also expertise. In the UK, it is about 60% women but also entirely made up of legal professionals and judiciary. But in Victoria, it is about 50% women but comprising victims, crime support advocacy groups and also criminal justice professionals. Perhaps the Minister can see whether the Ministry can consider such diversity in the panel.

On Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's two questions, and as to whether the panel can be invited to give views, we will give consideration but the situation in Singapore is slightly different from Australia. Let me explain why.

This is a relatively small place. The panel will also have judges. First off, it would look a little odd that judges appear before judges to give their views.

So, the composition that we are thinking of will have judges, practitioners, lawyers certainly, appointed by the Law Minister. The way we are thinking of, MinLaw might appoint two. Who those two persons will be, we will decide on whether it needs to be from the Bar or from other places. Other stakeholders will be involved.

A sentencing guideline issued by such a body, would be as I said, highly persuasive. It will be widely known across the legal and judicial circles. And I think that it helps us put up a framework beyond the legislation. Whether you need to go further, we can look at things as they evolve, but we also need to be careful how we structure it.

Second, I know, its a buzzword, diversity. I am a believer that you appoint the appropriate persons to the right job. This requires expert viewpoints. The guidelines from the panel must carry weight. It must have gravitas for judges to take it seriously. That does not mean that you cannot take in the viewpoints of a variety of people interested in this matter. NGOs will have interest, others would have an interest, people who want specific laws or specific types of penalties to be changed will have an interest. And you must appoint a panel that is open to hearing all these viewpoints. But the panel must have the expertise to make an assessment based on the law and what makes sense, and put it across. Open-minded, but an open mind is not an empty mind. It must also not absorb whatever nonsense that comes up. It must be able to assess what makes sense, what does not make sense, make an assessment, give guidelines that would carry authority and respect.

Who can provide that? There are many who have viewpoints. They will all be welcome to give their views. By necessity, the panel will not be a very large panel and there will be limits on how many people can be there. There is, in principle, no disability imposed on people, but I do not think we should run after this with diversity as a primary goal. The primary goal must be a sentencing body that would carry respect. In terms of gender diversity, I do not think Mr Zhulkanain or Members need to worry. That is something that my Ministry will keep front and centre, and even if we did not, I think more than half the profession are women anyway. So, you will expect that to be reflected in the panel.

Mr Speaker, we welcome the Government taking a tougher stand on sexual and hurt offences, and we also support the position that the offenders' academic achievements should not be a factor in sentencing.

But I do have a clarification though, on the Sentencing Advisory Panel. While it says that this panel's decisions will not be binding on the Court, it does create a situation, if the Courts were to deviate from the guidelines issued by this panel, it does create a situation that requires an explanation and therefore could create some pressure.

So, my question is, how does the Minister address the concern that this could be viewed as the Executive arm going into an area that has traditionally been under the Judiciary, and could this potentially compromise the independence of the Judiciary in the area of sentencing?

I think Ms Poa understands what I am asking, but she does not want to answer.

Why should it compromise the independence of theJudiciary? First of all, I said more than half the members would be from the Judiciary. Second, the purpose is guidelines for the future without referring to any specific case. Just like here, we are discussing what the laws ought to be. Do we compromise the independence of the Judiciary by doing so? Do we compromise the independence of the Judiciary when we set out in the law, what the punishments ought to be? Maximum, minimum, sometimes we say mandatory? Those decisions are made, that is a framework in which the laws are applied.

The guidelines are guidelines which will flesh out a little bit more. And it is for the Courts and the judges in the individual cases to decide whether the guidelines need to be departed from or need to be applied. How do the giving of these guidelines, how do the guidelines that the Courts have internally, how does any of this compromise the independence of the Judiciary? On Ms Poa's reckoning, the judiciaries in Australia and UK are no longer independent. May I have a view, please?

I think I have tried to explain this a number of times. Let me make a further attempt. The law sets out maximum penalty – four years, five years – for such an offence. The law cannot, if you look at the legal provisions, go into much more detail than that. Sometimes, you can have illustrations, you can have some examples. And the Second Reading speech tries to flesh it out a bit more.

But a Sentencing Advisory Panel looking at different types of cases can set out, flesh out a little bit more, in non-binding language in cases that fall into this sort of factual matrix involving offenders above a certain age, involving this type of offence. Generally, we think the range of sentences, our view is that it should be between this and this. That is what the Sentencing Advisory Panel can do. And as I indicated, more than half of the Sentencing Advisory Panel will comprise judges anyway. It is bringing together a combined wisdom to set out a framework for how cases can be dealt with and it is aid for the individual judges faced with individual cases and applying the law and the guidelines to the specific facts to see whether the facts come within, should it fall within this range or there are facts which take it out.

As I said, on the reasoning of Ms Poa, a number of judiciaries around the world would not be considered independent.

I thank the Minister for his Statement. I fully support the measures and the framework. I just want to make a point on behalf of workers, particularly, in four sectors: healthcare workers, transport workers, private security workers, as well as cleaning sector workers. I am fully aware that section 6 of the Prevention of Harassment Act does extend to Public Service workers and we have enhanced that. Whether Minister can consider in view of the vulnerability or should I say in a sense that they are essential workers, consider covering them within the ambit of this framework.

I think we need to be careful about using the tag of vulnerability. There are two points here. Certain categories of workers that you have mentioned perform essential services, they are front facing, they face people and we need to help them because they are more often abused. That is a fair point. But you got to find the right rubric.

The right rubric is therefore not to extend the categories of vulnerable victims. I think the right rubric is to say these people face bigger risks and can we identify them or people who fall in those categories for some additional protection? For example, public sector workers, essential workers, these are all defined and may help them. And I think upon your advocacy, we have also extended greater protection to other categories of workers. So, it is possible to work the law towards covering different categories, but you must use the right framework.

I thank the Minister for his Statement. However, it did not mention MinLaw's effort to protect victims of workplace sexual harassment, which is also very serious.

An AWARE-Ipsos survey in November found that 40% of workers in Singapore said they had been sexually harassed at the workplace, but only three in 10 of them officially reported it, for reasons that include the fear of not being believed or being blamed for bringing it upon themselves.

So, my question is, has the Government done any victimisation surveys of its own to uncover the extent of workplace sexual harassment in Singapore? And if so, what are the findings?

And secondly, are there plans to table any legislation to oblige employers to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment. I understand that TAFEP has issued a tripartite advisory on managing workplace harassment and that is quite comprehensive. However, it is only an advisory and it is not a statutory requirement. So, employees can choose to ignore them.

I also understand that we have POHA, but that requires the victim to file for a court order which may be too onerous for them. So, would it be better to give the TAFEP advisory more teeth?

As I understand Mr Giam's question, for harassment, there is a continuum. There is harassment which does not cross the threshold of criminality and then there is a harassment that does cross that threshold.

Once it crosses the threshold, that is what I have been talking about, amongst other things. The law takes over, criminal sanctions apply. I am not sure Mr Giam was in Parliament then, but when POHA was amended, it specifically allows individuals who feel harassed to take steps and to prevent the harassment, because, as I said, not all harassment amounts to criminal conduct. We drew a line ahead of whatever is criminal and said individuals, you can go and get remedies.

It has been made relatively easy to apply and get such orders.

We amended POHA to make expedited orders possible and make it even easier for orders to be obtained and we also made it criminal if people continuously breached Protection Orders. So, there are these steps that have already been taken.

Whatever the law can do, we have done. One of the remits I have asked MinLaw to look at would be, has been to analyse the number of applications that have been made, the time that has been taken and how effective is the process, and whether there are things that can be done to make it more effective.

So, from the legal perspective, we have empowered the individual, we have tightened up the criminal law. The laws stand there, first, to give aid and succour to individuals; and second, to protect them through the criminal process against the offender.

I think the essence of Mr Giam's question really is, beyond the legal framework, can more things be done from the perspective of employers and workplace safety. And that is a question I would invite him to file with MOM.

Mr Speaker, I thank Minister and MinLaw and MHA for the enhanced framework. I think it is really important and I am grateful for the Government in taking a strong stand against the sexual offences and hurt to better protect women and girls.

I have a question and I will take the opportunity to ask. It is not so much related to this particular sentencing framework. But to address the trend whether the norm in society where women are subject to sexual objectification, often in the media. I have come across residents' parents who grapple with their young children being exposed or even exchanging sexual content over the phone and so on with their peers – as young as the Primary school age. So, I think that is a very alarming phenomenon.

I would like to hear from the Minister what are his views in terms of this trend and whether there will be any laws or whether there are currently any laws to look into the media and content to take an upstream approach in protecting women against sexual objectification?

And also, I would like to express my gratitude for the fact that sexual communications are now a category of offences to avoid sexual grooming of persons from a young age. But I think the general societal exposure to sexual content, victimising or objectifying women, might be something that we want to address on a broader scale.

I thank Ms Tan for that. On the exposure of young children to sexual images, that is an offence. I talked about it and, in fact, the penalties have been enhanced.

The other question is a much broader one – sexual objectification. How does the media portray women? How do we think of women? That is beyond the remit of Home Affairs and Law because we deal with crime and punishment.

But it is precisely the topic that is front and centre for the women's conversation, which has been kicked off in September of last year. I spoke about it when I started off my Ministerial Statement.

These cases where the boys going to girls' toilets in universities and take a video, and they think of it as a prank or something that is cool to do. How does that mindset come about? And if we approach it simply from a criminal law perspective, yes, we will keep putting these boys into prison.

But while we have to take a tough approach, what is really needed is a new approach and new way, a change of mindset. Which is why last year, when we kicked off this entire process of having conversations on women's development, I spoke about us having to affirm the status of women, the inviolability. It is a fundamental value for society. And every boy and girl has got to grow up learning that respect for women is a non-negotiable point. And, therefore, it is not cool to go and do this. It is not just a prank. It is a serious violation of a fundamental value.

That is the approach we have to instil. So, it has got to bring a multi-agency effort to the table and that is what is being done through the conversations, understanding we have got to do it in the schools, we have got to get people to understand, we have to get them to understand from the time they are young. That has got to pervade across all sectors, including the media.

Against that are very powerful countervailing forces – the power of money and what sells. What makes a film more watchable, what makes a TV show successful? So, these are all factors. In a context where people will do everything possible to push their products, including objectifying women in the process, if they can sell more cars or whatever. But how should we approach it as a society? It is a value system and it is going to require a mindset change, it is going to require education. The answer does not lie with the law alone.