Police’s Handling of Voyeurism Cases and Issuance of Conditional Warning

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the police report made by an NUS student against a person who took a video recording of her in the bathroom (a) how does the police assess whether a person should be given a conditional warning; (b) what percentage of suspects given a conditional warning in similar cases have been rehabilitated; (c) what percentage of suspects went on to re-offend; and (d) whether there is any review of this practice after this case has been discussed widely.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider a public education campaign where people are educated not to watch or circulate voyeur videos or photos even if they do not contain nudity but which sexualise young people without their consent.

At the outset, Sir, let me say this: no woman or man should have to suffer the indignity of her or his modesty being insulted or outraged. That is not acceptable. As a society, we must make sure these values are maintained. People must feel safe, as they go about their life. Our laws must and enforcement must underpin these values.

The questions by Members relate to: (a) the statistics relating to sexual offences in our Universities; (b) the way in which Police/AGC exercise their discretion, in deciding to prosecute, or not prosecute an offender, and the general approach taken by Police and AGC on cases relating to sexual misconduct. Let me deal with the two points.

Mr Perera and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah have asked about the cases of sexual misconduct in the Autonomous Universities or AUs that were reported to Police. Earlier, MOE had informed Parliament that from Academic Year (AY) 2015/2016 to AY 2017/2018, 56 cases of sexual misconduct were reported to the AUs and 37 of these cases were reported to the Police. There was insufficient evidence to make out offences in two cases, and investigations in another four cases are on-going. Of the remaining 31 cases, 16 were prosecuted in court. There were jail sentences in 10 cases. Supervised probation was imposed by the Courts in four cases and a discharge not amounting to an acquittal was given by the Court in one case. And the sentencing for one case where the offender has been convicted is still pending.

So, that leaves a remainder of 15, out of the total of 31 cases. In 13 of these cases, a conditional warning was given. Two others were given a stern warning. Fourteen of the 15 students who were administered warnings, or 93%, did not re-offend. The one NUS student who re-offended had originally been issued with a conditional warning for a voyeurism offence he committed in 2015; he re-offended in 2017 and the Police prosecuted him in court for both his 2015 and 2017 offences. He was sent to jail for eight months and fined S$2,000.

So, beyond these 56 cases, there were an additional eight cases reported directly to the Police. Of these eight, there was insufficient evidence in 6 cases, and investigations in another two cases are on-going.

The Police had earlier also clarified some factual inaccuracies in media reporting of cases for AY2015/2016 and AY2017/2018. There were 25 cases of sexual offences brought before the NUS Board. Of these 25, 17 were reported to the Police. Nine of the 17 were prosecuted in court. The Courts handed down imprisonment terms in five of those cases; they gave supervised probation for three cases, and gave discharge not amounting to an acquittal in one case. In another seven of the 17 reported cases, Police administered conditional warnings. And the last case is pending investigation.

One of the media articles had also erroneously published that there were 13 repeat offenders. Based on Police records, there was only one repeat offender, and I had referred to that case earlier.

These numbers show that some have been prosecuted. Depending on the facts, others have been given a second chance. There are no "free passes" to University students or anyone else.

Let me give some background to our approach. I had some time ago asked MHA to review sexual offences, in particular offences against: (a) children – people will remember the Joshua Robinson case; and (b) women – outraging modesty, insulting modesty and other offences.

And I had also given directions to toughen our laws in these areas.

Following the review by PCRC as well as my Ministry, we decided that some new offences should be specified in law and sentences for some existing offences should be enhanced.

We have proposed new offences to deal with sexual exploitation of minors. We have also proposed new standalone offences for voyeurism, distribution of intimate images, commonly known as "revenge pornography"; and sexual exposure over the Internet, commonly known as "cyber-flashing". Voyeurism is now dealt with under "Insulting the Modesty of a Woman" in the Penal Code. The proposal is to make it a standalone offence and increase the penalties. We have also proposed the updating of some existing offences to deal with technological developments which enable predatory behaviour.

This is all set out in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, tabled in Parliament in February. It will be debated later today. If Parliament passes the Bill into law, then voyeurism, usually known as "Peeping Tom" behaviour, as well as the making, possessing, accessing and distributing of voyeuristic materials, will all be criminalised as specific offences. It will be presumed that the victims in such recordings did not consent to being recorded; that deals with the evidential challenge sometimes of identifying victims in such recordings, and the penalties will be enhanced.

Because of Parliamentary rules, I should not go into any further detail on the proposed changes. But we will be debating it and, of course, these changes were conceptualised, put through, drafted and tabled in Parliament before the latest discussions on these issues.

The proposals show the Government’s underlying approach and philosophy towards sexual offences where the victims are, of course, predominantly women. We take it very seriously, we want to send a very strong signal that would deter would-be offenders and protect victims, who, as I said, are predominantly women. The Penal Code changes have been thought through for over a year now.

All of this – being tough, taking a no-nonsense approach – does not mean that every offender must be or will be automatically charged in Court. Police and AGC must look at the facts of each case and exercise discretion.

Let me give an example. There was an NUS student, he had taken videos of children in a toilet in a shopping mall; happened over two days in 2015. He was caught, arrested by the Police. He was charged. After he was charged, Police and AGC received a medical report from his doctor at IMH. The assessment was that his risk of re-offending was low and he would benefit from continual mental health treatment. If he was put in jail, that could get affected. The fact that he did not have any prior history was also relevant. In the end, AGC directed Police to withdraw the charges and he was given a 24-month conditional warning. He has since completed the 24-month warning period; no further re-offending, and he has remained crime-free.

The data I have shown indicates in several other cases, prosecutions were carried out for offenders.

We must have tough laws. In fact, we are going to make them even tougher if Parliament agrees. We are creating new laws as well but we must also enforce them appropriately.

When a woman’s privacy has been violated, the follow-up actions must ensure that she is treated with dignity and respect, and her concerns must be addressed and she must be supported. The criminal legal framework must deal with the offender in a way that ensures the specific victim’s safety, deal with the specific offender and deter other would-be offenders.

In this respect, when such violation takes place in, say, NUS, there are actions that NUS has to take and there are actions that the Police have to take. Police will investigate, decide on the best course of action after investigations, whether to prosecute, not prosecute, and what is the right thing to do on all the factors, ensure that their decision will protect the victim and uphold deterrence and safety.

Sir, Singapore is one of the safest places in the world for women and children. Our laws and the way we enforce our laws have ensured that.

Let me give some brief statistics. Based on Police's 2018 Public Perception Survey, the perception of overall safety and security in Singapore among locals was 93%. How do women feel? Specifically, women and their perception of safety in their neighbourhood – 87% – nearly nine in 10 feel safe in their neighhourhood. Seventy-four percent of women feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. These figures have been consistently high over the years, and we want to make sure that that continues. Women ought to feel safe.

Members can be assured that the Government is committed to continue keeping the environment safe and being tough on such offences. That is why, as I said earlier, we have reviewed the Penal Code provisions, and are proposing new offences and seeking to enhance penalties.

Let me now answer the questions on how Police and AGC exercise discretion in such cases. Broadly, the approach is to consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case; the severity of the offence, including the evidence; and aggravating or mitigating factors.

The Police will also consider how other similar cases had been treated to ensure consistency. In the interest of fairness, like cases should be treated like other like cases. The Attorney-General, as the Public Prosecutor, makes the final decision based on his prosecutorial discretion.

Specific facts, and I say this by way of illustration, could include previous criminal record, if any; level of remorse, whether the offender comes clean, cooperates; and whether any videos of the victim have been posted online or otherwise shared.

Police also assess the likelihood of rehabilitation. Police make such assessments regularly, when making decisions. This is part of their professional craft. They will then recommend the course of action: to prosecute, or give a conditional warning, or a stern warning, or to take no further action. AGC will make the final decision.

I should add that in these cases, the assessment of future conduct and possible rehabilitation is quite important. This is so even when the offender had done similar acts previously, which will, of course, weigh against him. The Police will look at all the factors, including the level of remorse, whether he owned up voluntarily, the likelihood of reform and the likelihood of re-offending. They will also, of course, consider the circumstances of the victim, the impact of the offence on the victim and the need for deterrence.

Generally, there would be no reason for Police to show any leniency, if the following aggravating factors are present: (a) a person has previous convictions or was warned for similar offences; (b) premeditation and deception in committing the offence, for example by using hidden pinhole cameras, masking his face, covering CCTV cameras, or other means to evade detection; (c) the video had been shared or circulated; or (d) the perpetrator was not remorseful or had been uncooperative in the investigation.

Let me illustrate by reference to a case in 2015. A 23-year-old man filmed a woman showering at Republic Polytechnic. The accused had committed the offences over a period of four months. He tried to evade detection by covering his face with a towel, covering up CCTVs in the vicinity and did not own up voluntarily. The man was charged and sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment.

Another illustration: five men were jailed between six months and three years for engaging in serial acts of voyeurism and sharing videos of their victims in an online forum.

There had been questions on conditional warning. A conditional warning means that (a) an offender has been put on notice; (b) he would know that the authorities have enough evidence and are prepared to press charges against him if he does not reform; (c) if he commits a fresh offence during this period, he would be liable to be prosecuted for both the current offence and the subsequent fresh or new offence; in other words, he is not let off the hook for the earlier offence; he will pay for both.

Members have not specifically asked about Mr Lim’s case, involving Ms Baey. Let me nevertheless point some of the facts out by reference to the broader position I put out.

Mr Lim is on thin ice with his conditional warning. The factors that were taken into account in his case were set out in the Police statement. If he offends within the period of 12 months, he will be charged for the offence relating to Ms Baey and the new offence.

The case has been dealt with, so it is therefore best that I do not go into it in detail on the factors. But briefly, there were factors which could have justified charging him, the primary one, of course, being that he had done something very wrong. These factors were weighed against other factors, which would justify giving him another chance. The Police weighed both sets of factors, and decided that a conditional warning was appropriate. It was one of those cases, quite usual, normal for Police, where the decision was based on judgement. Police assessed him to be remorseful and likely to reform. He confessed voluntarily within minutes of the offence being committed and well before any Police report was made. He was cooperative with the Police. He had not circulated the video. That had been deleted. Other factors have also been mentioned in the Police statement.

A conditional warning has been an effective deterrent for offenders who have had good propensity to reform. Even after the stipulated crime-free period, the warning remains an internal record for calibrating future prosecutorial decisions. Perpetrators who receive warnings are told in clear terms that if they re-offend, they will face serious consequences. As the cases at the Autonomous Universities show, most who were given conditional warnings did not re-offend. Out of the 15 who received warnings, one student re-offended, and he was dealt with severely; he went to jail.

Sir, we take a very stern view of sexual misconduct. Several perpetrators have been prosecuted and put behind bars. But the rigid meting out of uniform penalties will not serve the wider public interest.

Er Dr Lee also asked about victim care and public education. One area which we continuously review is how to further improve on the support given to victims of sexual crimes who experienced emotional, psychological damage and stress.

Over the years, we have made significant improvements to Police processes and the way Police officers interact with victims. We have trained a group of specialist investigation officers to handle sexual crime cases. We have rolled out the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSafe) Centre, where victims of rape can undergo interviews and forensic medical examinations at a single private location without having to go between the Police station and the hospital. We have a response framework to ensure that victims of sexual crimes are attended to quickly and a victim care programme that provides emotional support.

Er Dr Lee asked if we would consider a public education campaign about the harms of taking and distributing voyeuristic videos. We certainly will, but I think a very good public education campaign will be if Parliament passes the amendments later today. That will be given concerted publicity, to raise awareness about the new sexual offences including voyeurism, when it is classified as a standalone offence and the enhanced penalties.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions. First, who is the qualified person to make the assessment on the accused's suitability for rehabilitation. Is this process applied to all accused persons?

And there is strong public outcry. Many felt that MHA gave more consideration to the offender than the traumatised victim as the future of perpetrator was mentioned. But what about the potential long-term, or even possible permanent damage to the victim? How can MHA ensure that victims are given fair consideration, if not more.

The third supplementary question. It is not just about Monica Baey and Nicholas Lim. We need to send a strong signal to everyone that we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. I agree with the Minister that we need tougher laws, but I disagree that in sentencing, we compare like-for-like. In fact, the sentencing should be heavier, compared to the previous one. So, I hope, the Minister will consider that.

Let me try and answer that. Who makes the decision on assessment for rehabilitation. I went into the factors in some detail just now. The investigating officers and their superiors make the Police assessment. They do this every day. It is not just for victims of sexual offences, but other offences too. But, of course, within the framework of the law, that is why you take into account the severity of the offence, the impact on the victim, the need to deter others – it is a whole set of framework. Within that, you also look at the offender and you make an assessment based on how cooperative he has been. You are sitting down, you are talking to him, you see whether he confessed or he tried to hide. What does his conduct show about him? It does not mean that the assessments will be perfect, but this are highly trained officers who do this every day; they make an assessment. That is then discussed with the AGC, who make the final decision, taking into account the legal framework and the overall set of factors.

Sir, it is a careful process. I think it is not often that MHA or the Singapore Government is being accused on being soft on these sorts of issues. I think usually the complaints are the reverse; that not enough mercy is shown. We have made that an article of faith that we are tough. We are tough on crime, we are tough on the causes of crime and as a fact that we are putting up amendments to the Penal Code shows, there was never any intention and never any practice of being soft. I think we err on the side of being tough. At the same time, you look at the facts of each case and where it is possible to exercise discretion, you do it. That is done by the Police as well as by AGC.

The second point is that MHA gives consideration to the offenders, when, really, more concern and care should be given to the victims. I absolutely agree. The impact on the victims is very important. Not just for the victim but also to deter similar conduct and it will protect others. The reason why the crime rate in Singapore is so low, is because people generally understand a few things: one, if you commit an offence, it is likely that you will be caught; second, if you are caught, there is a very high likelihood that you will be charged, depending on the offence. If you are charged, there is a very high likelihood that you will be found guilty because the investigation will be thorough, the facts will be presented, there is a professional set of lawyers dealing with it and the Courts are staffed by highly trained lawyers. So, if the evidence is presented, properly assessed, then it is likely to result in a conviction. But, of course, if there is no evidence, or the evidence is weak, it will be thrown out. And in fact, AGC would often not even proceed on the basis that of there being no adequate evidence.

So, this framework, I think, is well understood on the ground. Which is one of the reasons why the crime rate is low as well in Singapore. You cannot do something and get away with it, by and large. How is it balanced, what were the factors that are taken into account, I have said in specific cases in my answer. But I agree as a method of approach and principle, yes, of course, what has happened to the victim is extremely important and nothing I say detracts from that.

Third, we have to send a strong signal, what I meant like-for-like was this: you have a set of facts, a certain decision was taken to prosecute or to give a conditional warning. You then have another case, with a similar set of facts. I think fairness requires that, in both cases, the outcome is similar, so there is consistency. Consistency does not mean leniency, please do not mistake me. Consistency means you have decided to charge, then you will decide in a subsequent case to charge. If you have decided to give conditional warning and the factors are broadly similar, then you will tend towards giving a conditional warning. But, of course, you will look at whether there are any other factors. So, it is more that there has got to be a certain consistency in the way the law is apply and is processed, not just in the Courts. Of course, we can look at the precedence for consistency, but also from the perspective of the Police and AGC. That is what I meant.