Debated in Parliament on 6 May 2019.
Debate resumed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken. Let me address the points that have been raised by Members.
Members spoke positively about the amendments relating to vulnerable victims. Members spoke eloquently and passionately about the need to protect the vulnerable. Victims like Annie Ee and Daniel Nasser were mentioned in many of the Members' speeches. No words can express the sorrow their families went through. We hope that the new laws protecting vulnerable victims will help to deter such cases from occurring.
Ms Rahayu asked about the difference between "vulnerable person" in the Bill and "vulnerable adult" in the Vulnerable Adults Act (VAA). The VAA provides powers to the State to take intrusive measures, such as removal of the vulnerable adult from their living conditions. Hence, a narrow definition of "vulnerable adults" was adopted in the VAA. This is to strike a balance between respecting individual autonomy and protecting those in need of help using intrusive protective measures. Those that do not meet the high threshold in the VAA can and have been helped in other ways.
The PCRC was of the view that the definition in the VAA was too narrow for the purposes of the Penal Code and it recommended for "vulnerable persons" in the Penal Code to be wider to cover more persons. This sends a strong deterrent signal and can potentially reduce the need to resort to intrusive remedial measures as envisaged in the VAA. The VAA was only recently passed. We should give it time and MSF will keep a close watch to ensure the interests of the vulnerable in the community are looked after and the balance appropriately struck.
Ms Rahayu and Mr Melvin Yong spoke about the proposed section 304 offence, and whether persons who are also suffering from abuse might be prosecuted for not taking action. The provision provides that a person is not guilty of an offence under section 304C if she could not have been expected in her circumstances to take steps to protect the victim from the significant risk of grievous hurt. We have also provided that such circumstances include her past or present experiences of abuse as a result of an unlawful act by any member of the same household as her.
Ms Rahayu also asked about the differences between the new sections 335A and 304C. The bases for the introduction of these offences are quite different. The offences of "failure to protect" has been proposed to cover persons who owe these vulnerable victims a duty of care. It reflects society's view that these people are responsible for the safety and well-being of the vulnerable victims in their care, custody or control. The offence of "causing or allowing death" applies to members of the same household as, and who have frequent contact with, the victim. This offence was introduced to overcome an evidential difficulty where two accused persons who have the exclusive opportunity to harm the vulnerable victim deny any ill-treatment of the victim.
Ms Anthea Ong and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about conditions under which the Courts may apply enhanced penalties for the offences against vulnerable victims. The enhanced penalties allow the Courts to punish offenders more severely if they prey on the vulnerabilities of certain persons. If the vulnerability did not make the person more susceptible to the offence, the offender will be subjected to punishment but not enhanced punishment. A person with a physical disability, for instance, may not necessarily be vulnerable, say, in respect of a white collar crime like fraud. There has to be a link between the vulnerability and the offence for enhanced punishments to apply.
Ms Irene Quay and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah made suggestions to improve the reporting and detection of domestic violence. Domestic abuse should, in the first instance, be reported to the Police. Police are trained to deal with such cases and have the legal powers to intervene quickly to stop any imminent or on-going abuse. Police also work with MSF to ensure that the victim receives care and, if required, will physically separate the victim and the assailant. MSF will consider the Members' suggestions. As Ms Quay acknowledged, much has already been done by MSF.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked how the amendments relating to abuse and neglect of vulnerable victims interact with decisions associated with palliative care. The Bill does not affect bona fide palliative arrangements. The Bill, for example, at section 304C, introduces obligations on persons in the household who have frequent contact with the victim and who are aware of a significant risk of grievous hurt being caused to the victim to take steps which could reasonably have been expected of such persons to take, to protect the victim from the significant risk. This involves a fact-sensitive exercise.
Mr Patrick Tay and Er Dr Lee spoke about rehabilitation of offenders in Prisons. Psychiatric intervention will be provided to selected offenders where necessary and feasible. Prisons' programmes also include psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes and work programmes. Mr Tay suggested that psychiatric treatment or psychological counselling be mandatory for sexual predators after the completion of their sentence. We will consider this suggestion. Mr Tay will be aware that offenders who are subject to the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) for certain serious sexual offences are required to undergo community supervision and must comply with conditions, such as counselling and case management.
Mr Melvin Yong spoke about the impact of the amendments on Prisons' resources. The Ministry will monitor the impact of the amendments on Prisons and continue to ensure that Prisons will be adequately staffed and resourced.
Members had a discussion earlier about the possibility of certain Penal Code offences being amended by Schedule. In general, Parliament should have oversight of criminal offences of general application, such as those in the Penal Code. There is agreement that we do not retrospectively make acts criminal. On section 409, we acted to reform section 409 as quickly as practicable, considering the need to consult the relevant stakeholders. I believe that the amendment has benefited from parliamentary scrutiny. In the case of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is a specialised legislation and the Schedule lists classes of substances. If we only list specific molecules, the peddlers will change one of many of the component molecules. So, there is, in that case, a particular operational context.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah spoke about minors dating adults and of dating websites. We share Er Dr Lee's concerns and our response is multi-pronged. The amendments today will deal with sexual exploitation of minors by adults. We want to prevent predatory conduct by adults against minors. We have amended the sexual grooming offences. We have also introduced a sexual communication offence to deal with sexting between an adult and a child. These address grooming behaviour upstream. We will closely monitor and take action against the users of dating websites or social media sites if they exploit young persons.
Mr Alex Yam spoke on criminalising all forms of child abuse material. The distribution and sale of fictional child abuse material are criminalised as "obscene material" in the Penal Code and will be subject to enhanced penalties. The current maximum penalty is three months and it will be enhanced to two years. We thank Mr Alex Yam for drawing our attention to the international developments and we will monitor the situation closely.
Er Dr Lee spoke about cases where parents have clearly ignored sexual abuse of their children. She asked about abettors and those who repeatedly witness abuse but do nothing. The amendments criminalise the failure of caregivers to protect children from ill-treatment, which includes the subjecting of the child to sexual abuse. Where death is caused to the child or young person, the maximum imprisonment term has been increased from seven to 14 years. Where death is not caused, the maximum imprisonment term has been increased from four to eight years.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the CYPA amendments, whether they will be brought into effect at the same time that MSF raises the proposed definition of "young person" to 18. We will try to see whether we can have the changes take effect at the same time or, if that is not possible, as soon as practicable.
Members supported the introduction of the new offence of voyeurism and distribution of intimate images. Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the impact of the new offences of voyeurism and distribution of intimate images on private investigators, persons who report crimes, or caregivers. There are defences where the recordings are for legitimate purposes. Specific requirements apply to qualify for this defence. Among others, the act has to be done without malice, with reasonable cause and the image or recording is used for contemplated or pending Court proceedings and is not kept longer than necessary or required.
Mr Desmond Choo sought a clarification on whether cases which involved the distribution of videos prior to these amendments coming into force would be investigated under the new offences. They would, if the distribution takes place after the provisions take effect. If their offending acts occurred before the new laws are in force, they would be dealt with under prevailing laws.
Mr Tay also suggested that the Courts be allowed to make orders which essentially involve the deletion of the offending images or recordings. The Courts can order the disposal of any property which has been used in the commission of an offence. The CPC was amended last year to specifically allow an order for the deletion of data on a computer or mobile phone where the data was the subject of an offence.
Mr Tay also spoke on dealing with the source of the offending images. The source of the images will be identified through Police investigations and the Police will do its best to track the source. Those in possession of the images have to cooperate in investigations to provide information on the originators of such material.
Mr Desmond Choo and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah spoke about websites that carry prohibited material. We take a strong stand against sites that host prohibited material. IMDA can issue directions to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to such websites.
Internet content providers (ICPs) include web-hosting services, and they are all class-licensed under the Broadcasting Act. So, they are required to comply with the Internet Code of Practice and ensure that prohibited material is not hosted on their websites. If such websites are verified to be hosted in Singapore, the IMDA can direct the ICPs to take down the content and suspend or cancel the class licences of the ICPs.
I thank Members for their support for the repeal of marital immunity for rape. Mr Louis Ng asked about the extent of the repeal of marital immunity. The answer is all non-consensual sex with one’s spouse will be an offence. His question also discusses sex within marriage involving minors. It is not tenable to completely ban minor marriages today. A majority of countries around the world share the same approach. The legal age of marriage is set at 18 years of age. We allow minors in Singapore to enter into marriage with special approval, but these marriages are extremely rare and robust safeguards are in place.
Members raised concerns relating to proof. I make two points in response.
First, all cases of alleged rape – within or outside of marriage – are subject to the same level of evidential rigour during investigation and prosecution. Police officers at the Serious Sexual Crime Branch are trained to deal with complex issues of evidence and proof.
Second, there are existing offences in the Penal Code on false reporting and we are enhancing penalties for false reporting.
I want to thank Members for their support for the amendments to sections 375 on rape, 376 on sexual assault involving penetration, and 509 on insult of modesty.
Ms Anthea Ong supported the expanded legal definition of rape and spoke passionately about the need to protect all victims of sexual assault, regardless of gender. We agree.
Ms Anthea Ong spoke about a positive definition of “consent” in the Penal Code.
Instituting a new positive definition of consent could generate further uncertainty in view of the fairly settled law in this instance. The PCRC studied this issue and found that the experience of England and Wales in having a positive statutory definition does not help in clarifying the scope of consent.
Ms Ong has suggested greater public awareness about the contours of consent. We will work with agencies and organisations to improve on public education in this area.
Members spoke on the repeal of attempted suicide. I was particularly struck by Mr Desmond Choo’s first-hand account from his days as a Police officer where he had to serve a warning to a semi-paralysed lady who had attempted suicide. He said "it felt unnecessary and discomforting". With today’s amendments, such warnings will no longer be required.
Mr de Souza set out his concerns regarding the decriminalisation of attempted suicide. Let me be clear. The abetment of attempted suicide is still a crime. The amendments actually enhance the penalties for abetment of attempted suicide significantly. The amendments multiply the maximum punishment by 10 times to 10 years’ imprisonment, and for certain other categories. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide remain illegal.
Mr Louis Ng spoke about support professionals that could assist police when intervening in attempted suicide cases. The SPF’s Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) is trained to handle cases like suicide attempts. Comprising police officers and psychologists, they are trained in negotiation tactics and suicide intervention. Officers are also trained to ensure their own safety. Social workers, for instance, at SOS and SSOs, can be involved later after the Police have ensured the safety of various parties. We will look into Mr Ng’s suggestion on psychological first aid training.
On the use of MyResponder, interventions involving attempted suicide are different from CPR and AED procedures. We want to avoid a situation where a well-meaning member of the public reacting to the notification exacerbates the situation, or puts himself in a position of danger.
Mr Murali spoke about Police intervention and treatment. The safeguards that were previously there – Police intervention, SCDF intervention – will still be there, post-decriminalisation. Where appropriate, Police can still exercise powers under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act. There will still be mental health treatment for appropriate cases. But, as Ms Anthea Ong highlighted, not all cases involve mental illness. For others, counselling or family support may be needed. The Government will continue to maintain statistics, taking into account inputs from the various agencies which respond to suicide attempts.
Some have raised questions on whether decriminalisation will impact reporting by the public. This should not be the case. Our experience informs us that callers who call emergency lines to report attempts do not call to report a crime. They call for help, out of concern for the safety of the person attempting suicide and others in the vicinity of the person.
Mr de Souza asked for a study to be conducted following the decriminalisation. We will monitor the situation post-amendment but we must remember that suicide attempts happen for various reasons. An increase or decrease in the number of attempts may not be attributable to criminalisation or decriminalisation.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for statistics on reports for attempted suicide. The number has been steady in the last five years and the average annual number of reports is 1,210.
The medical literature suggests that there are multiple factors that affect suicide risk, ranging from barriers to seeking help, to economic downturns, to personal risk factors. For example, mental health disorders, substance abuse, financial problems and many others.
Mr Ang Wei Neng suggested that there be mandatory counselling for those who attempt suicide. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) operates a 24-hour hotline to counsel persons in distress. The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) operates a 24-hour Mental Health Helpline to assess and triage cases and activate home visit teams if necessary. To make it mandatory means that we will have to enforce the need to go for counselling, and are likely to do so on pain of punishment. Again, we are trying to move away, in this area, from criminalisation to help. So, we should tread carefully in this aspect.
Mr Louis Ng spoke about the MACR and whether it could be raised to the age of 12 years. There is currently no scientific consensus on what the MACR should be. So, we looked at factors such as prevailing criminal activity among the various age groups. We assessed that there would not be a significant threat to public safety to raise the MACR to 10 years of age. Persons of 10 years of age or above and under 12, can still avail themselves of a defence if they can show that they have not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct. We think this strikes the right balance.
Mr Melvin Yong spoke about his concerns regarding the raising of the MACR. I hear the Member’s concerns, and assure him that the raising of the MACR will only come into force when the mechanism to address offending behaviour in children below the MACR is put in place. The framework will ensure that children below the MACR will still have their behaviour addressed.
I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her support for the introduction of section 323A and the raising of the maximum sentence for section 323.
Both Ms Lim and Mr Ang Wei Neng spoke about voluntarily causing hurt (VCH) and arrestability. We do take hurt offences seriously. All Penal Code offences committed against children under 14, vulnerable persons, and domestic workers, will be made arrestable, regardless of the arrestability of the underlying offence. This includes VCH against these vulnerable victims.
In addition, the expansion of the definition of “public servants” to include persons, such as those who conduct illegal parking enforcement on behalf of the Government, means that acts of hurt committed against a wider range of persons will be arrestable.
So, we are moving incrementally, to ensure that cases get the appropriate response and there is no inadvertent diversion of Police resources away from critical cases.
Ms Lim and Mr Ang asked about the various scenarios in which Police initiate investigations for VCH cases without any of Magistrate's complaint. These include: acts of VCH which cause serious injury which falls short of grievous hurt; acts of VCH involved in road rage; VCH cases involving secret society members; racially or religiously aggravated VCH cases and acts of VCH against public service workers such as taxi drivers, transport workers or nurses. We will continue to monitor the situation with regard to VCH and study the various suggestions. 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.
Mr Murali asked about the proposed revision to criminal conspiracy. There are no reported instances of the use of section 120A of the Penal Code against conspiracies to engage in non-criminal conduct. There is no strong policy reason or public imperative to keep it in the Penal Code. There is available recourse for such civil wrongs through the civil courts. The same approach is taken in the UK under the Criminal Law Act 1977, where criminal conspiracy is limited to agreements to commit offences.
The Member also spoke about criminal defamation. The assessment on criminal defamation is different. While there is civil recourse for defamation, the policy assessment is that there may be certain cases of defamation where criminal sanctions are required to reflect the seriousness with which society regards such conduct. It overlaps with a civil wrong, but so do other crimes such as theft and fraud. A policy decision has been made for these acts to be treated both as crimes and as civil wrongs.
Mr Murali has proposed moving the Penal Code offences relating to kidnapping or corruption to other specialised legislation. We will consider Mr Murali’s feedback, and will also ask CPIB to consider it as well. I should address one point though. The Member said there was an anomaly in sentencing; kidnapping in the Kidnapping Act is punishable by death but this was not the case in the Penal Code. The apparent inconsistency can actually be reconciled. The heavier penalties under the Kidnapping Act are due to the fact kidnapping for ransom is involved. Conversely, the kidnapping offence in the Penal Code encompasses a much broader range of conduct, including less serious conduct.
Mr Desmond Choo sought clarification on the need for an identifiable victim for the new fraud offence. The new offence of fraud does not require an identifiable victim. The LIBOR case is a clear example where dishonest gain can be made through the financial system without there being an identifiable victim or loss caused. It is very difficult to find a lay person who understands how LIBOR is calculated, given the arcane nature of the mechanism. Proving loss is also extremely difficult, because LIBOR is an inter-bank lending rate and it only impacts ordinary consumers indirectly, and the impact depends on the practices of each bank. For example, in setting fixed deposit interest rates linked to LIBOR. If it is clear that someone acted dishonestly to gain a benefit, he should be punished.
Mr Choo asked why this new section was required in lieu of strengthening the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). The SFA regulates specific financial transactions and products, whereas the fraud offence will cover any kind of dishonest or fraudulent behaviour for gain. The new fraud offence puts a stop to the game of "catch-up" with actors who have a strong financial interest in finding loopholes in regulation. So, this law can be used against such actors.
Mr Choo also asked about how the regime compares with that of foreign jurisdictions. The proposed Fraud offence is adapted from the UK Fraud Act 2006. It has a heavier maximum punishment – 20 years’ imprisonment as opposed to 10 years’ in the UK – to account for the fact that a single count of fraud can encompass a single deceptive scheme which affects multiple victims. The higher maximum punishment is to ensure that complex, large-scale frauds receive the appropriate sentence.
Mr Choo also asked about the lack of a materiality requirement in the new offence. The purpose of the new fraud offence is to focus on the culpability of the offender and not the effect it may have had on the victim. Requiring proof of materiality requires a shift of focus back to the victim and how material they found the falsehood, and this is inconsistent with the purpose of the new fraud offence.
Mr de Souza spoke about presumptive minimum sentences. The amendments set out the provisions which presumptive minimum sentences apply to. They include provisions in laws outside the Penal Code, including certain offences under the Passport Act, the Fisheries Act and the Immigration Act. But the listed offences do not include provisions in the MDA. The list of offences presumptive minimum sentences will be applied to is tightly scoped. We are not introducing a general doctrine that a mandatory minimum sentence should be replaced by a presumptive minimum sentence.
Finally, let me discuss an issue Members have raised – education, awareness raising and social norms. Members have raised important and valid points. We agree that public education and awareness raising is vital; and we know that the amendments today need to be known beyond this House. We will continue to work on this together with Members and community partners. Yes, the law has its limits. The law can shape social norms, but it is only one factor. The legal direction is clear. Families, schools, media and the wider community, including NGOs, also play important roles in shaping norms, and we look forward to working together.
I believe I have responded to major concerns raised by Members. I thank Members for their support on this important Bill. The amendments are timely, comprehensive and necessary. I thank members of the Penal Code Review Committee for its comprehensive report leading to this Bill and all who shared their views on the Bill.
As Mr de Souza had said, this is a monumental Bill and a law that has been with us for close to 150 years. The task of this generation is to update it, strengthen it and make it relevant to today’s circumstances. This is an opportunity for this House to register our strongest condemnation against acts that harm the most vulnerable among us. Persons like Annie Ee, Cindy, Daniel Nasser. It is our duty to protect our society against predators like Joshua Robinson and ensure that they get the justice they deserve. Thank you.
Mr Patrick Tay.
Just a point of clarification. In my speech, I asked the Ministry, there is a provision where the definition of public servant, where the Police engage law enforcement officers on the ground, such as private security officers or auxiliary police officers, they are treated as public servants if they are carrying out law enforcement, crowd control duties and so on. So, would private security officers be treated as public servants in this aspect?
Under the provision, it would depend on the functions that they perform. The Act has got specific requirements. So, if they perform a function as set out in the Act, yes, they will be covered and they will be entitled to the protection accorded to public servants.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Just two points of clarification. First, I understand that, palliative care and care of that sort would not be constituted as "neglect relating to death". But, what about refusal to accept medical treatment or convey the vulnerable adult to medical treatment, when there might be some issue about the adult actually not wanting medical treatment in the first instance.
The second point is on the question I raised about whether there is a possibility, as part of the social norms of sexual offences, these offences are under-reported in Singapore. This has been the contention that Ms Baey and others have made. Would the Ministry consider studying this issue to determine whether it is a problem?
On the issue of palliative arrangement, as I mentioned, it is a fact-sensitive exercise. The elements of the offence have to be made out, but certain indicators like the evidence of abuse and all that would have to be looked into. There will be police investigations and the Courts will have to weigh evidence and the Prosecution as well would have to look at the evidence to see whether there is any merit to the complaint. So, the intent of the Act, is not to go after bona fide palliative arrangements. I think that is as far as I could go but quite a lot of it is fact-sensitive.
On the issue of under-reporting, we are aware this is a global phenomenon. We have made changes to our various processes, including reporting processes and the provisions today as well. These show a clear trajectory that we will like to provide extended support to victims of sexual offences and we will do what we can. There will be various studies to see how we can extend our outreach and support people who are in such situations.
There are no other clarifications.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Amrin Amin].
Bill considered in Committee.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 –
Clause 8. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are seven amendments to clause 8, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 7* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments 1 to 5 proposed in clause 8 are to clarify the objective formulation of “rashness”. This is in line with the common law as stated by the High Court in PP vv Hue An Li. Amendment 6 is to clarify that some offences may have some physical elements which are strict liability, and have no corresponding fault elements. Amendment 7 is to clarify the defence for a strict liability offence, which arises when the accused person shows that he exercised reasonable care in doing all the acts or omissions which are physical elements of the offence.
[(proc text) The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 8, lines 30 and 31: to leave out “, and that it is unreasonable to take that real risk,”.
(2) In page 8, line 32: after “circumstance”, to insert “, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk”.
(3) In page 9, lines 2 and 3: to leave out “and that it is unreasonable to take that real risk”.
(4) In page 9, line 3: to leave out “thing”, and insert “act”.
(5) In page 9, line 3: after “effect”, to insert “, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk”.
(6) In page 11, line 16: to leave out “that”, and insert “any”.
(7) In page 11, lines 19 and 20: to leave out “doing anything or omitting to do anything specified in the charge”, and insert “committing all the acts or omissions that are physical elements of the offence”.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 –
Clause 15. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment is to make clear the legislative intent that enhanced penalties for offences committed against domestic workers apply only to employers, members of an employer’s household and employment agents who commit offences against their domestic workers.
[(proc text) The amendment read as follows:
In page 13, line 9: after “offence)”, to insert “that is committed against that domestic worker”.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 to 27 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 –
Next amendment. Clause 28. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment is to make editorial amendments such that for an accused person to rely on a defence of unsoundness of mind, he must not know that what he is doing is wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons, and wrong as contrary to law.
[(proc text) The amendment read as follows:
In page 25, line 20: to leave out “or” where it first occurs, and insert “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 33 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 –
I hope Members are following. There are amendments to clause 34. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are four amendments to clause 34, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 4* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments are to give effect to the legislative intention that inchoate abetments of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment be punishable with discretionary caning.
[(proc text) The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 33, line 18: to leave out “and”.
(2) In page 33: after line 18, to insert —
“(b) by inserting, immediately after the words “to fine” wherever they appear (including in the Illustration), the words “or to caning”;”.
(3) In page 33, line 21: to leave out “.”, and insert “; and”.
(4) In page 33: after line 21, to insert —
“(d) by deleting the words “to a fine” in the Illustration and substituting the words “to fine or to caning”.”.
No clarifications.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 35 to 37 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 –
For Members who are not following, please refer to the Notice of Amendments to Bill in the Order Paper Supplement. Clause 38. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments to clause 38, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 and 2* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The intent behind the amendment to section 121A is to remove the limbs of the offence that do not require the offender to commit any physical act or omission. These are colloquially known as “thought crimes”. While this was not proposed by the Penal Code Review Committee, the Government reviewed this, and is of the view that this should be amended to keep the law updated.
There is value in retaining section 121A, but we should limit its scope. In that regard, the Government proposes to remove the words “compasses, imagines, invents, devises or intends”, and replace them with “plans”. This will remove the “thought crime” limbs of the offence. The term “plans” refers to early preparatory acts which may fall short of the “substantial step” requirement for attempts or criminal conspiracy to be made out. This will allow for authorities to intervene at an earlier stage of planning than what is currently allowed under the law of “attempts” and “criminal conspiracy”. The death penalty will also be removed as a punishment option for this offence, and an imprisonment sentence of up to 20 years will be included as a sentencing option.
[(proc text) The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 35, line 25: to leave out “Amendment”, and insert “Repeal and re-enactment”.
(2) In page 35: to leave out after “is” in line 26 to end of line 28, and insert —
“repealed and the following section substituted therefor:
“Offences against the President’s person
121A. Whoever plans the death of or hurt to or unlawful imprisonment or restraint of the President, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to 20 years and shall, if he is not sentenced to imprisonment for life, also be liable to fine.”.”.
This is the part referred to by Mr Murali Pillai earlier on. There are no clarifications.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 –
Clause 39. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments to clause 39, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together.
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 and 2* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments to section 121B remove the “thought crime” limbs of the offence, by deleting the words “compasses, imagines, invents, devises or intends”, and replacing them with the modern term of “plans”.
There is value in retaining section 121B as amended. The term “plans” refers to early preparatory acts which may fall short of the “substantial step” requirement for attempts or criminal conspiracy to be made out. This will allow for authorities to intervene at an earlier stage of planning than what is currently allowed under the law of “attempts” and “criminal conspiracy”.
The death penalty will also be removed as a punishment option for this offence, and an imprisonment sentence of up to 20 years will be included as a sentencing option.
[(proc text) The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 35, line 29: to leave out “Amendment”, and insert “Repeal and re-enactment”.
(2) In page 35: to leave out after “is” in line 30 to end of line 31, and insert —
“repealed and the following section substituted therefor:
“Offences against authority
121B. Whoever plans the unlawful deprivation or deposition of the President from the sovereignty of Singapore, or the overawing by criminal force of the Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to 20 years and shall, if he is not sentenced to imprisonment for life, also be liable to fine.”.”.
Yes, Mr Low.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a clarification for Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Why are there so many amendments. Is MHA rushing through the Bill?
I thank Mr Low for the question. I think this is a very complex Bill, and as a result, there are some of these amendments and we want to be very careful about this. So some of these amendments needed to be made so as not to leave any doubts and cause problems later on. I apologise for the inconvenience and I think we can get through this quite quickly.
Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 to 79 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80 –
Clause 80. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are four amendments to clause 80, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?"
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 4* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Amendments 1 and 3 clarify the meaning of "premeditation" to make clear that it refers to the fault elements of the accused person arising before the time of the offence. Amendment 2 makes an editorial amendment to correctly site the proviso that an offender cannot rely on the Exception of sudden fight if he knew or had reason to believe that the victim was acting in obedience to the law or was a public servant lawfully exercising his powers in Exception 4. Amendment 4 is an editorial amendment to clarify that for an accused person to rely on Exception 7 of Diminished Responsibility, he must not know that what he is doing is wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons, and wrong as contrary to law.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 58: to leave out after "intention" in line 2 to end of line 5, and insert —
", which was formed prior to the circumstances which gave rise to the act of private defence —
(a) to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or
(b) to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the way mentioned in section 300(d).";".
(2) In page 58, line 6: to leave out "3", and insert "4".
(3) In page 58: to leave out after "intention" in line 21 to end of line 24, and insert —
", which was formed prior to the circumstances constituting the sudden fight —
(a) to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or
(b) to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the way mentioned in section 300(d).".
(4) In page 59, line 28: after "or" where it first occurs, to insert "wrong".
*Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 81 and 82 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83 –
Clause 83. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are nine amendments to clause 83, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?"
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 9* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Amendments 1 to 4 provide that the scope of offenders covered by the new offence of "causing death by sustained abuse" should cover persons who have care, custody and control of a child or a vulnerable person, or an employer of the domestic worker, member of the employer's household, or the employment agent of a domestic worker. Amendments 5 to 9 provide that the scope of victims covered by the new offence of "causing or allowing death" includes domestic workers. The rationale for these provisions has been dealt with by Minister Shanmugam.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 60, line 12: to leave out "Whoever", and insert "A relevant person who".
(2) In page 60, line 18: to leave out "and", and insert ",".
(3) In page 60, line 18: after " "employment agent" ", to insert "and "member of the employer's household" ".
(4) In page 60, line 30: after "worker", to insert ", a member of the employer's household".
(5) In page 61, line 12: after "age", to insert ", domestic worker".
(6) In page 61, line 15: after "age", to insert ", a domestic worker".
(7) In page 62, line 27: to leave out "10 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 82".
(8) In page 62, lines 28 and 29: to leave out "or above 10 years of age but below 12 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 83".
(9) In page 63: to leave out lines 5 and 6, and insert —
"(d) "domestic worker" and "vulnerable person" have the meanings given by sections 73(4) and 74A(5), respectively; and".
*Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 84 and 86 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87 –
Clause 87. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment clarifies the Illustration to make clear that it is only possible to commit attempted culpable homicide with an intention to kill. This renders it consistent with all other attempt offences.
*The amendment read as follows:
In page 65: to leave out after "amended" in line 7 to end of line 9, and insert —
"—
(a) by deleting the words "such intention or knowledge" and substituting the words "the intention to cause death"; and
(b) by inserting, immediately after the words "at Z" in the Illustration, the words "intending to kill Z".".
*Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 88 and 103 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104 –
Clause 104. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments to clause 104, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 and 2* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments make editorial amendments to replace references to persons below 10 years of age with references to the section numbers of the provisions in the Penal Code on the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. This is because the increased Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility will only come into force after the mechanism for the management of young children who exhibit offending behaviour is ready.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 71, line 8: to leave out "10 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 82".
(2) In page 71, lines 9 and 10: to leave out "or above 10 years of age but below 12 years of age", and insert "the age specified in section 83".
*Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 104, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 105 and 111 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112 –
Clause 112. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment makes editorial amendments to the list of offences relating to non-consensual sexual penetration which are excluded from the scope of section 376A.
*The amendment read as follows:
In page 76: to leave out after "375(1)(a)" in line 11 to end of line 16, and insert ", 375(1)(b) read with section 375(3), 375(1A)(a), 375(1A)(b) read with section 375(3), 376(1)(a), 376(1)(b) read with section 376(4), 376(2) (if the victim B is of or above 14 years of age) or 376(2) (if the victim B is below 14 years of age) read with section 376(4).".
*Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 112, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 113 and 116 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117 –
Clause 117. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are 12 amendments to clause 117, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 12* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments provide for extra-territorial application of the offences of sexual communication with minors and sexual activity or image in presence of minors.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 81, lines 18 and 19: to leave out "took place in or outside Singapore", and insert "originated in Singapore provided that either A or B was in Singapore at the time of such communication".
[(proc text) (2) In page 82, lines 17 and 18: to leave out "took place in or outside Singapore", and insert "originated in Singapore provided that either A or B was in Singapore at the time of such communication".*
(3) In page 83, line 3: to leave out "and".
(4) In page 83: after line 3, to insert —
"(ii) when either A or B is or both are in Singapore; and".
(5) In page 83, line 16: to leave out "and".
(6) In page 83, line 18: to leave out ".", and insert "; and".
(7) In page 83: after line 18, to insert —
"(e) either A or B is or both are in Singapore.'.
(8) In page 84, line 11: to leave out "and".
(9) In page 84: after line 11, to insert —
"(ii) when either A or B is or both are in Singapore; and".
(10) In page 84, line 27: to leave out "and".
(11) In page 84, line 28: to leave out ".", and insert "; and".
(12) In page 84: after line 28, to insert —
"(f) either A or B is or both are in Singapore.".
*Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 118 and 119 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120 –
Clause 120. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are eight amendments to clause 120, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 8* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Amendments 1, 7 and 8 insert a new provision to provide for extra-territorial application for the offences of producing child abuse material and procuring or using a child in the production of child abuse material. Amendments 2 and 3 are editorial in nature. Amendments 4 to 6 provide that using or involving a child in the production of child abuse material will include situations where a person who has care or custody of a minor under 16 allows the minor to be used for the production of such material.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 88, line 17: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".
(2) In page 89, lines 14 and 33: to leave out “with that intention”.
(3) In page 89, line 33: to leave out "A's", and insert "A".
(4) In page 95, line 10: after "used", to insert "or allows the person to be so used".
(5) In page 98, line 22: to leave out ", causes or procures".
(6) In page 98, line 24: after "material", to insert "or causes or procures B to be so used".
(7) In page 103, line 32: to leave out "".".
(8) In page 103: after line 32, to insert —
[(proc text) "Child abuse material offences outside or partially outside Singapore*
377BO.—(1) Any person, being a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, who does, outside Singapore, any act that would, if done in Singapore, constitute an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3), shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be.
(2) To avoid doubt, any person (A) who does in Singapore, any act involving a person below 16 years of age (B) and B is outside Singapore, that would if B were in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, as the case may be.
(3) Any person who does outside Singapore, any act involving a person below 16 years of age (B) and B is in Singapore, that would if done in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH, as the case may be.
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply only where A is in a relationship that is exploitative of B.
(5) To avoid doubt, any person (A) who does in Singapore, any act involving a person who is of or above 16 but below 18 years of age (B) and B is outside Singapore, that would if B were in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be.
(6) Any person (A) who does outside Singapore, any act involving a person who is of or above 16 but below 18 years of age (B) and B is in Singapore, that would if done in Singapore constitute an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be.
(7) To avoid doubt, any person who does in Singapore an act which is a physical element of an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3) shall be guilty of an offence under section 377BG, 377BH or 377BL(2) or (3), as the case may be, if all the fault elements and physical elements of the offence are proven even though other physical elements of the same offence occurred outside Singapore.
Illustrations
*(a) A, a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, films in a foreign country a video recording of child abuse material involving a person below 16 years of age (B). B is in that foreign country during the filming. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH read with section 377BO(1).(proc text)]
(b) A, who is in Singapore, uses remote video facilities to film a video recording of child abuse material involving a person below 16 years of age (B). B is in a foreign country during the filming. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH read with section 377BO(2).
[(proc text) (c) A, who is in a foreign country and is not a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, uses remote video facilities to film a video recording of child abuse material involving a person below 16 years of age (B). B is in Singapore during the filming. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BG or 377BH read with section 377BO(3).*
(d) A, who is in Singapore, uses computer software to alter and reproduce child abuse material which was not filmed in Singapore. The child abuse material is not stored in Singapore but in a computer server in a foreign country which A accesses through A’s computer in Singapore. A is guilty of an offence under section 377BH read with section 377BO(7).".".
*Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121 –
Clause 121. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are three amendments to clause 121, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 3* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. These amendments are editorial, and consequential to the insertion of a new provision relating to the extra-territorial application of the offences of producing child abuse material and using or involving a child in the production of child abuse material.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 104, line 5: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".
(2) In page 104, line 6: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".
(3) In page 106, line 5: to leave out "377BN", and insert "377BO".
*Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122 –
Clause 122. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment makes editorial amendments to the list of minor-specific offences in section 377D. If the accused person had previously been charged for these minor-specific offences, he cannot avail himself of the defence in section 377D.
*The amendment read as follows:
In page 110, line 7: to leave out "375(1)(a), 375(1A)(b), 376(1), 376(2)", and insert '375(1)(b), 375(1A)(b), 376(1) (if the victim B is below 14 years of age), 376(2) (if the victim B is below 14 years of age)".
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 123 to 137 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 138 –
Clause 138. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment makes editorial amendments to ensure that similar definitions of “representation” apply for the offences of fraud introduced in sections 424A and 424B.
*The amendment read as follows:
In page 121, line 18: after "section", to insert "and section 424B".
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 139 to 166 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 167 –
Clause 167. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are four amendments to clause 167, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 4* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments are editorial amendments to provide clear examples of situations where a person has committed an offence of attempt, and to provide that for offences of attempts, mandatory minimum sentences for the underlying offence do not apply.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 134, line 11: to leave out "act or", and insert "person in such possession".
(2) In page 134, line 16: to leave out "act or", and insert "person mentioned in subsection (1)".
(3) In page 135, line 30: to leave out "subsection (1)", and insert “that subsection".
(4) In page 136, line 7: to leave out "(1)", and insert "(2)".
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 167, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 168 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 169 –
Clause 169. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are five amendments to clause 169, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 5* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments provide for consequential amendments to the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code arising from the amendments made during the Committee Stage.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 142, lines 41 and 44: after "years", to insert " and fine'.
(2) In page 142, lines 43 and 46: after "years”, to insert ", and fine, or caning".
(3) In page 143, line 18: to leave out "items relating to sections 121 and 121B", and insert “item relating to section 121".
(4) In page 143: after line 18, to insert —
"(g) by deleting the word “Ditto” under the sixth column in the item relating to section 121A and substituting the words "Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 20 years, and fine";
*(h) by inserting, immediately after the word "life," under the sixth column in the item relating to section 121B, the words "or imprisonment for 20 years,";".(proc text)]
(5) In page 148, line 35: after 'age', to insert ", domestic worker".
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 169, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 170 to 173 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 174 –
Clause 174. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are three amendments to clause 174, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
Please proceed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments 1 to 3* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments provide that the lifting of marital privilege under section 124 of the Evidence Act will apply to the following situations:
(a) Child abuse offences committed against a person below 16 years old;
(b) All hurt offences committed against children. This is consistent with the coverage of domestic workers and vulnerable persons; and
(c) All attempts, abetments, and conspiracies to commit such specified offences.
This will ensure that spouses of an accused person can be required to give evidence in a trial of that accused person for sexual or violent offences committed against children.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 166, line 1: after "offence", to insert "committed against a person below 16 years of age".
(2) In page 166, line 2: after "offence", to insert "or an offence under Chapter XVI of the Penal Code (other than a sexual offence)".
(3) In page 166: after line 17, to insert —
"(e) an abetment of, a conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit any of the offences mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d);".
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 174, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 175 to 191 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Consequential amendments* to be made will be made.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 33, line 19: to re-letter paragraph (b) as paragraph (c).
(2) In page 83, line 4: to renumber sub-paragraph (ii) as sub-paragraph (iii).
(3) In page 84, line 12: to renumber sub-paragraph (ii) as sub-paragraph (iii).
(4) In pages 143 to 161: to re-letter paragraphs (g) to (zzzn) as paragraphs (i) to (zzzp), respectively.
Before we read the Bill for the Third time, I just want to thank all Members for their patience.
Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS