Death of Student

Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a Statement.

This is a very sad case. A young girl has been traumatised and a boy's life has ended prematurely. We must do right by these two young lives.

When Police deal with young persons who have committed offences, their main aim is to rehabilitate them, so that they can go on to lead a crime-free life. That gives them a second chance.

It is tragic that such an incident has taken place. It has been a very trying and distressing period for both families. We are very aware of that and we have refrained from commenting in detail on the matter for two reasons.

One, out of respect for Benjamin's memory and to protect the young girl as well; and, two, because it would be improper to discuss the facts in detail − which will be disputed − prior to the Coroner's Inquiry (CI). Given that a CI is pending, I took advice from AGC on what I can say today. They have advised that I can set out what I am going to in the speech. But I do so with considerable reservations and I will explain later why.

Mdm Speaker, if my voice gives way, I will ask my Senior Minister of State to carry on.

I will now deal with the questions raised by Members by looking at the following: one, what are the facts in this case; two, what is the Police Protocol for interviewing young persons; three, the deliberate falsehoods that have been spread in this case to blemish the Police; some people were doing this, as I will show later; and four, why has my Ministry not commented in detail, until now, on the matter?

First, the facts. I want to emphasise that the facts are as we know them now, at this stage. Whenever I refer to facts, that is the basis on which I refer to them.

There are two aspects to the facts in this case: one, why Benjamin was asked to assist the Police in the investigations; and two, how the Police investigated the case.

On 25 January 2016, a Police report was made. An 11-year-old girl said that she had been molested. Amongst other things, Police retrieved the relevant CCTV footages. A boy in school uniform was identified as the suspect. The boy was later identified as Benjamin Lim. He lived in Yishun. On that day, 25 January 2016, while he was coming home from school, it appears that he made a detour. He went to another block in the neighbourhood, before going home. He seemed to have followed the 11-year-old girl. The two appear not to have met before. He went into a lift at her block, at the ground floor. He followed her in. And he is said to have molested the girl in the lift.

There are CCTV footages showing Benjamin making his way to the other block, Benjamin quickly following the girl into the lift after she entered it and there is CCTV footage, within the lift, showing what happened. Police have these footages.

Benjamin admitted to the Police that he touched a part of the girl's body and that he did so intentionally. The girl has said to the Police that Benjamin touched a part of her body.

After the incident, he stepped out of the lift at the 13th floor. The girl said there was a brief exchange between them when he stepped out of the lift. She did not follow him. CCTV footage then shows Benjamin going down one floor to the 12th floor and then taking the lift down to the ground floor.

It would appear, therefore, that his purpose of him getting into the lift was to follow her and, after the incident, get out and go back.

She reported to her father what happened. The family filed a Police report on the same day, 25 January.

Now, let me turn to the Police investigations. As stated earlier, Police retrieved some CCTV footages. Based on his school uniform, Police identified the boy to be from North View Secondary School.

On the next day, 26 January, Police went down to the school. Five officers went: three from the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) and two from Division. The three NPC officers have detailed knowledge of the community, they interact with the schools, they interact with the community and the teachers. They link up with the school; they make interactions smooth; they answer questions that the school may have. Basically, they facilitate the process.

The Divisional officers assist in the investigation of cases. The five officers were not in Police uniforms. They were not in any attire with the word "Police". They went in plain clothes, in unmarked cars. The officers showed a screenshot of the CCTV footages to the school officials. The boy in the screenshot was identified to be Benjamin Lim. A school official then brought Benjamin to the Principal's office. One Police officer spoke with Benjamin. Some of the school's educators were present. The officer spoke with Benjamin about the incident. The other four Police officers were not present.

After the interview, Benjamin was advised to call his mother by the Principal. And he called his mother. When he finished conversing with his mother, the Police officer spoke with the mother. He told her that Benjamin will be brought back to Ang Mo Kio Police Division to give a statement. Benjamin was then brought back to the station in an unmarked car with three officers.

One of the officers alighted along the way. That left two officers in the car: one to drive and the other to look after Benjamin. At Ang Mo Kio station, an officer recorded Benjamin's statement. This was done by the officer at his workstation, in an open plan office.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to hand out a sketch and picture showing the layout of the office, please?

Mdm Speaker : Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Mdm Speaker, there are four pages. The first page shows the overall layout of the office and the particular workstation where Benjamin was interviewed is circled. The second page shows a specific photo of the workstation as well as the passageway in between the workstations. The third page shows a sketch of the specific workstation. Members will see, L1, L2 and L3. L1 is where the interviewing officer sat, L2 is where Benjamin sat, and L3, within the same cubicle was where another officer sat doing his own unrelated work. The fourth page shows a photograph of the chairs in the cubicle in question.

As Members can see, Benjamin was interviewed in a typical open office setting and another officer unrelated to the case was nearby doing his own work. There were other officers at their respective workstations. Benjamin was not handcuffed at any time. He requested to be given some time to collect his thoughts about the incident. His written statement was taken at a quarter past 12, after he said he was ready.

Benjamin was cooperative throughout. He was offered food and drinks after the interview and he declined that. After the interview, he was placed in a Temporary Holding Room which was secured. This was pending his mother taking him back. He was alone in that room. Police then recorded a statement from the mother who was at the station.

Benjamin was then released on bail. He left the Police station with his mother and sister. Time spent by Benjamin in the Police station was about three and a half hours which included the time Police spent taking a statement from the mother. That was the last contact between the Police and Benjamin.

What happened after Benjamin and his mother left the Police station? Based on investigations, the following is what we know. They went home. Benjamin had lunch. He played games on his phone. Sometime later, his mother told Benjamin that he would not be going to the school camp that was to start the next day. That was after a telephone conversation between the mother and a school counsellor. The Minister of Education will provide more details on that conversation. At about 4.20 pm, Benjamin was found dead at the foot of his block. These are the facts.

Now, let us ask a question: if Benjamin had not taken his own life, what would have happened in this case? Let me give Members some statistics, which will show what usually happens.

Over the last five years, from 2011 to 2015, a total of 7,196 young persons have assisted Police in investigations. Of these, 70%, that is, seven out of 10 were either warned or placed in a Guidance Programme or had no further action taken against them. About 15% were charged. Another 15% of the cases are under consideration.

Charges are usually only brought against young persons when there are aggravating factors, such as when the offence is of a serious nature like rioting, or if the young person is a repeat offender, or has breached the terms of a conditional warning, for example, by failing to complete the necessary Guidance Programme.

As the statistics show, the Police's approach to young persons is, wherever possible, to try and avoid criminalising the conduct. It is better to give young people a second chance and help in their rehabilitation. It is likely that on the evidence available to us, Benjamin would have received no more than a warning. He is unlikely to have been charged in Court. Police would have taken into account his age, the fact that this is the first time and while all molests are taken seriously, the nature of the specific molest in any case has to be considered.

The nature of the alleged molest in this particular case can be characterised as being less serious in a range. That is based on CCTV footages. I would, however, caution that the statistics I have given and the relatively tolerant approach that the Police take towards young persons should not be seen as a licence for young persons to commit offences on the basis that seven out of 10 will not be charged.

Let me now deal with the second of my four points. The Police Protocol for dealing with young persons. Police adopt an expedited process for young persons: to interview them and release them as quickly as possible to their parents. In this case, Benjamin was released to his mother within four hours of being brought to the station. Where suitable, a young person will be placed on a programme to help him. An example is the Guidance Programme. The focus is on diversionary supervision and counselling. Young persons will usually be students. The Police guidelines are for the school to be kept updated on the progress of the case. That will allow the school to monitor and support the student.

Do we need to amend the Protocol for interviewing young persons? I have asked my Ministry to review the Protocol. One suggestion that has been made is to video-record interviews of all minors. We have announced last year that we are studying the matter of video recording. We will make further announcements when we have worked through the legal and other issues.

Another suggestion that has been made is that we extend the Appropriate Adult Scheme to all young persons being interviewed. We have the Appropriate Adult Scheme to provide assistance to suspects who have mental and intellectual disabilities. The role of the Appropriate Adult is to assist these persons to communicate more effectively with the Police. Police have said in their statement of 1 February that they will consider this point during the review.

The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) has contacted us and offered to give us their views. We will engage them and get their views. But I will caution against rushing to conclusions at this stage. If there is something we can do better, we will do so. In the review, the following three broad points will be taken into account, in addition to other factors. Those three points are: one, what happened in this case; two, the types of young persons who get picked up; and three, how can we reduce systemic risk.

Let me deal with the three points. First, the experience in this case. Are there any specific indications in this case that the processes need to be changed? I have set out the facts that we know, facts which we believe are accurate. There is nothing so far on the evidence to suggest that Benjamin was mistreated by the Police. I have set out how the investigation was done. At this stage, we cannot say that the interview was the specific reason for the suicide. Suicide often involves a very complex set of factors. One has to look at the facts carefully, consult experts to try and get an assessment as to what happened.

Police will also consult psychologists and other relevant experts. Some people have asked: why did we need to take him out of the school? Could we not have waited until Benjamin got home?

Mdm Speaker, we need to be clear about how we expect Police to investigate cases in general. Let me explain. When Police went to the school, they did not know who he was or his history. An accused person unknown to the Police could well have engaged in other molest, and until then, maybe no one had reported. If the Police wait, and he molests someone else in the meantime, then the question would be: why did the Police not move in faster?

When an incident happens, as a general rule, I am sure we want the Police to move in quickly. Every year, we pick up more than 1,300 young persons – students and also others. What do Members think the public's attitudes will be if it was the victim of the molest who had committed suicide? Police would be expected to have moved quickly. This will become clearer when I deal with my next point: the types of young persons we pick up.

Young people get picked up for a wide range of offences, from rioting, sexual assault, physical assault to even murder. Some, obviously, involved in very serious offences. Police need to move quickly, arrest, investigate, before the others, including other gang members, destroy evidence.

Should we make distinctions based on the types of offences involved? What about gang riots? What about deliberate arson or Unlicensed Money Lending cases? What about those which are more security related; say, a 14-year-old, who was radicalised and wants to go out and kill?

Internal Security Department (ISD) has interviewed some in that age group. And to prove the point, two weeks ago, we stopped a 15-year-old radicalised boy from Indonesia. He had wanted to go and fight in the Middle East. So, let us take this seriously.

Let me now turn to the third point. We must reduce systemic risk where possible. We cannot assume that all Police officers will always follow protocols. There will be some who will be tempted to take shortcuts. We have to ensure that we have a system that minimises the risks. I say minimise, because there is no system in the world that I know of which eliminates the risks completely. This factor of needing to minimise the risk will be taken into account when we review the Protocol.

In this context, Police will look at past experience, the thousands of young persons who have been investigated. Members can see that there are many aspects to this issue, many questions which need to be carefully considered. The current Protocol had considered these, but we will review again. This is not a situation where we should have knee-jerk reactions or come to hasty conclusions. Any of our children could have been in Benjamin's position and any of our daughters could have been in that 11-year-old girl's position. We will approach the review of the processes with that perspective.

Mdm Speaker, let me add another point. My Ministry has the responsibility for the Protocol that is in place. And ultimately, responsibility is with me, as the Minister. It is not with individual Police officers. Their responsibility is to act according to the Protocol in place. In this case, on the facts that have been given to me, I believe that they have carried out their duties faithfully and properly in accordance with the rules and the Protocols. If there are questions about the Protocols, I will answer, as I am doing now. If there are issues with the Protocol, the responsibility is mine. Let us not attack the Police officers who cannot defend themselves. They are doing their job every day in difficult circumstances.

Madam, now let me turn to the deliberate falsehoods that have been put out to tar the Police unfairly. This is the third of my four major points.

There have been a number of inaccurate statements that have been put out. We say "inaccurate", based on the facts the Police have. Some of the inaccurate statements are as follows: (a) that the Police were not in plain clothes when they went to the school to identify Benjamin, effectively alleging that the Police were lying to Singaporeans when they put out their statement of 1 February; (b) allegations that Benjamin was interviewed and intimidated by five Police officers; (c) that he must have been coerced to make an admission to an offence that he did not commit; and (d) some have even suggested that the girl might not have been molested and might have made a false Police report.

A number of these falsehoods have been put out by The Online Citizen (TOC). It has gone on a planned, orchestrated campaign, using falsehoods and has published about 20 articles or so, as part of its campaign. One example of the falsehoods, as I had said earlier, Police have said on 1 February that they went down in plain clothes, yet TOC published an article on 5 February saying that Police wore attire stating the word "Police". The suggestion is that the Police were lying to Singaporeans.

They supposedly relied on a posting by a lady, Mary Anne Pereira. She had stated that her son saw Police officers in Polo T-shirts with the word "Police". Police checked with Ms Pereira. She says she had gotten it wrong. She got her dates mixed up. She is wrong because the Police went to the school in plain clothes on 26 January. She has taken down her post.

People make many statements online. They can be mistaken. That is why there is a Court process to establish the truth. The overall narrative and impression conveyed by the various TOC articles are: (a) Police were lying; (b) Police intimidated the boy; and (c) Police put pressure on him to confess to a crime that he did not commit, allegations, implications which are false, practically leading people to conclude that Benjamin committed suicide as a result.

I have prepared a table, listing some of the articles and the falsehoods, unfounded implications which they convey. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like the Clerks to distribute this table after my Statement, not now.

Yes, please.

It is sad to see this level of dishonesty and politicisation of this matter. Where the Police are wrong, we must and we will take action. But we should not allow deliberate, dishonest attacks. I have asked my Ministry to study how the Police and other institutions can respond in future to such falsehoods.

Others have also commented on this matter. Many of them are honest, reasonable people, who have genuine questions. But as I read the commentaries, it seems that many based themselves on a misperception of the facts which I had referred to earlier. That brings me to my fourth major point: why has my Ministry not commented substantially, particularly to correct these inaccuracies, until now?

Mdm Speaker, I told my Ministry, earlier on, that we should refrain from commenting too much, or in detail, on this matter. I decided that for two reasons: (a) out respect for the family, to give them some space and time to grieve; and (b) there will be a Coroner's Inquiry (CI). That is the right forum for the relevant facts to be dealt with. I think Members will know when I keep quiet, usually there is a good reason; a good legal reason.

Let me touch on both reasons. A family has lost a 14-year-old boy. They issued a statement, an open letter, signed by Benjamin's father. That statement contradicted some of the things Police had said on 1 February and made some additional points which the Police disagreed with. The family also suggested that Benjamin had been coerced into admitting to the molest. The Police could have immediately rebutted the family's statement. The Police could have set out their version, like what I have set out today. The Police could have released the CCTV footages, which would show, quite objectively, what happened inside the lift. They could have referred to the open plan office; they could have referred to him making a detour from school to home and going into the lift with the girl. They could have shown that he went up; the incident took place; he then got out and ran back down.

But is that the right thing to do? To have a public trial by media, at this stage; rebut the family in public and add to the family's grief? The answer, in good sense, is clearly no. We can understand that the family, in their grief, may genuinely believe some things, and, perhaps, even assert them in public. But we chose not to respond. These matters can be dealt with at the Coroner's Inquiry. And even at this stage, I have decided that we should not release the CCTV footages of what happened in the lift, out of respect for Benjamin's memory and to help the young girl as well.

Police have also continued to engage the family. When Police spoke with Benjamin's family last week, his father told us that the family felt pressured by the public and media attention. Photographers and reporters have been loitering around their house. He asked for privacy and explained that he would like his family to be kept out of the spotlight. He asked that we inform the media of this and tell the media that the family did not want their identity, names, pictures published. The family even asked for the entire Coroner's Inquiry proceedings to be held in private.

Attorney General's Chamber (AGC) will give their request careful consideration. Ultimately, it will be up to the Court to decide. Yesterday, the father spoke with a Police officer. He repeated those requests. Now, let me deal with the second reason why we did not comment in detail, until today.

The CI will, to the extent possible, try to establish the cause of Benjamin's death and the facts. All Coroner's Inquiries in Singapore are held in public, unless the Court decides that some part of it should be in private. For example in this case, it can be argued that the identity of the 11-year-old girl should not be revealed. She is a young victim who has been deeply traumatised, and it could be argued that the CCTV footage of what happened within the lift should be viewed in private as well, for the sake of Benjamin's memory and for the young girl. Once the Coroner announces his findings, both facts and conclusions, then people can offer their criticisms, viewpoints, comments on what the Police did, what my Ministry did, or did not do. That is the official version of the facts, after people are cross-examined on the stand.

Sub judice principles set out what can and cannot be said when a Court hearing or Inquiry is pending. The various pronouncements, suggestions, statements which imply and allege that five officers interviewed him, that the Police pressured and intimidated Benjamin into wrongly admitting to guilt and that these must have been amongst the reasons why he committed suicide; all these allegations possibly infringe the principles of sub judice, apart from being highly improper at this stage, prior to the Coroner's Inquiry. The Coroner decides on the scope of the Inquiry based on the Coroner's Act. Some of these issues may be raised at, or become relevant, at the Inquiry.

Police came out publicly on 1 February – six days after the incident, five days after they went to the school – to say there would be a Coroner's Inquiry once Police investigations into the death were completed. They made it public. And Police said in their statement that all relevant facts would be presented, and where the family would be able to raise all questions that they may have. This is Singapore. There is no such thing as a cover-up. Yet, some, like TOC, continued making accusations, insinuations, speculating on the facts, well after that.

As I have said, it is understandable when the family said some things. But TOC and its ilk should not engage in this, prior to the Coroner's Inquiry. TOC also used some other tactics. They tried to get the Police to comment on allegations relating to this case and further assert that since the Police and the Ministry were not responding, therefore, the Police must be guilty of the various allegations, assertions that have been made. The Police, out of respect for the Coroner's Inquiry process, were right in not responding.

It is surprising that even a lawyer, Mr Thio Shen Yi, has made some comments which should never have been made. He has said five Police officers spoke to Benjamin. That is false. He has said that five officers took Benjamin to the Police station, that is also false; and that Police should have behaved in a less intimidating way. He seems to make the assertion of intimidation, based on his other statements which are themselves false. His statements practically imply that Benjamin killed himself because of police intimidation.

Mr Thio has a duty to be fair to the Police officers. He need only to have referred to the Police statement of 1 February to know that many of the assertions he is making are untrue. And without knowing anything about Benjamin, his mental make-up, his family background, one cannot reach such conclusions that he was intimidated and that is why he took his life.

A lawyer should know that it would be useful to get some expert evidence. For example, get assessments from psychologists. My officials and I personally have spoken with the former Chief Psychologist of IMH, Prof Long. He told us you look at the following things amongst others.

People sometimes take their lives when they reach a point of hopelessness; they give up on life. What were the possible reasons Benjamin gave up on his life? This may involve having to look at, one, his mental state before the incident – depends on a variety of factors, surrounding circumstances and the time period could stretch some way back, even years. One has to also consider what were the stressors in Benjamin's life before the incident. What led him to engage in this incident? If the behaviour was not normal, what was going on in his mind? Two, you look at the events on the day, including his conduct during the incident and the interview. And, three, the events after the interview, including his various interactions. So, there were many aspects to look at and it would not be accurate at all at this stage to fix on any one particular point and say with certainty that that was the reason why the suicide took place.

Mdm Speaker, I have focused on Benjamin's case. Mr Thio and others have also referred to other issues, early access to counsel being one of them. On early access to counsel, there are reasonable arguments both ways. Our position on early access to counsel has been made clear previously. We had arrived at this position after thoroughly considering the matter and taking into account all the relevant factors. I am prepared to explain again our reasons and thinking behind this position in due course at a more appropriate time. Today, I would like to keep discussions to this case.

Next, let me say about the discussions today. I have gone into some detail. We have the following set of circumstances. Assertions which go to the integrity of the Police Force have been repeated several times, including untrue factual assertions, and Members have filed many Parliamentary Questions (PQs). In these circumstances, not everyone will know why the Government has not responded and people may misunderstand if the Government did not respond. Thus, I decided, with some regret, and considerable reservation, and after consulting the AGC, that we will have to set out the facts and discuss the matter.

Amongst other things, public confidence in the Police Force must be maintained. The law is as follows. The rules of sub judice generally preclude discussions which may prejudice proceedings, but public officials like myself can make statements if they believe it to be necessary in the public interest, even if there is a hearing pending. I have myself commented on some occasions in the past, when a case is pending. When I have done so, I had carefully considered the legal position and kept within the principles of sub judice.

TOC and some others have ignored the pending Coroner's Inquiry and have made wild allegations in this matter. It is in the public interest that we clarify the position. As to what happens to the people who have made those allegations, I will prefer not to comment today.

As we go forward, from time to time, there will be other incidents in the future. The incidents will raise legitimate public queries. We must have a clear proper framework to deal with them, such that when an incident happens, first the facts have to be established. We must avoid jumping to conclusions. We must also avoid attacking institutions and individuals based on those hasty conclusions. We must allow the facts to be established first. This is Singapore. There are proper processes for all facts to come out.

Second, if there are going to be public hearings, we should not prejudice or prejudge the hearings. There can be a full, open discussion, once the hearings are over. Even prior to the hearings, there can be legitimate discussions on general principles and approaches but it has to be done with some care. We will relook at the law to see how we can try and achieve this better.

The discussion today that we are having in the House should not become an automatic precedent for the future. I think Members will agree that the facts that I have set out should ideally be first dealt with at a proper inquiry and people must have the ability to test those facts, and police officers may have to be cross-examined. The Judge will make the finding and then we can discuss. We should not get into this mode.

I have addressed the following points today, Mdm Speaker. I have outlined the facts of the case as we know them. I have set out the Police procedures. I have set out some of the untrue statements that have been made about the Police. And I have explained why we had not seen it right to discuss this matter earlier and, at the same time, why at this stage, I decided that we will discuss it.

If I may say this in conclusion, Mdm Speaker, at the end of the day, every life matters. It matters to the Police, it matters to the Government and it matters to all of us.

Mdm Speaker, Minister Ng will now speak on the support that schools provide for students under investigations. After which, Madam, with your permission, we will both address clarifications that Members may want to seek. And with your permission, Mdm Speaker, in the interest of clarity and expedience, may I request that Members raise clarifications relating to my Statement first, followed by those relating to Minister Ng's Statement. Thank you, Madam.

I give my permission. Acting Minister Ng.