Students Under Investigation

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs who indicated earlier that seven out of 10 of the youths who are involved in Police investigations eventually go away with warnings or are just put under the Guidance Programmes. The Minister also indicated that, every year, more than 1,300 youths are picked up for various offences. Can the Minister elaborate on the impact of youth crime on public safety and the challenges in dealing with youth crimes?

Mdm Speaker, when we pick up 1,300 on average, you can imagine the range of offences which I have described. Although not common, we have had murder; we have had physical assault; we have had young people being picked up for gang riotings. If my memory serves me right, about maybe over 500 were picked up for rioting in the last five years, rioting involving serious gang activities. We have young people involved in unlicensed moneylending activities, particularly arson. I think almost all Members would have come across that and how your residents fear for their safety. So, it presents a wide range of challenges.

At the same time, our own research and approach show that, at a young age, the criminality or criminal conduct can, with the right approach, be limited in time or limited by age. That is why we send a very large number − again, if my memory serves me right − about 600 per year to Guidance Programmes where, in return for not proceeding with a charge, they have to undergo a six-month Guidance Programme, about 20-over sessions where they are taken through the need to understand the nature of the act involved, including the criminality, the impact on the community, how to manage themselves better in their social interactions. This is a programme that, in a way, of course, involves the AGC and MSF. The recidivism rate is only about 11%. That means 89% go on to lead crime-free lives.

That is the fundamental Police approach − not criminalise, move them on to a crime-free life but, at the same time, when the incident happens, we have to move. A few years ago, we had a case of a 13-year-old boy raping his domestic helper. You have to act.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister for Home Affairs. Was the Police of the view that the offence, as founded upon the facts that the Minister has set out, was sufficiently grave and urgent that it could not and did not schedule for a later interview with the boy and his parents?

I thank the Member for the request for clarification. But I have gone into this in my Statement and suggested that we approach it with the facts known to the Police at that point in time. When they went down to the school on 26 January, they did not know who the boy was. They did not know what his antecedents were. Some may have been reported; some may not have been reported. If he had committed another molest, Members would be asking me, "Why did you not go down faster?"

As a matter of principle, I think all Members will agree with me that when an offence has been committed, you want the Police to move as quickly as possible. But we have the right Protocol on how a visit to a school should be handled. So, the Police went in plain clothes. There is a Protocol worked out with MOE. You saw what happened here. The boy was brought to the Principal's office; he was interviewed in the presence of the educators and then, he was brought back to the Police station in an unmarked car. So, as little possibility of publicity as possible. But move, we must. Unless as a society, we say that regardless of what happens, we should never go to the school. I do not think Members will think that is a right approach.

I thank both the Ministers for their Statements which reflect the solemn nature of this incident. My question or clarification is in relation to the Police Protocol: was there a need for five officers to go down to the school? I appreciate that three of the five were from the NPC, but was there a need for three NPC officers?

I asked this clarification because I believe that the fundamental rationale for intervention where a youth offender is concerned is rehabilitation, to rehabilitate the youth. And importantly, in order to rehabilitate, one has to rehabilitate in his or her own peer group. For that purpose, it was the school or one of the peer groups was the school. Therefore, was there a need to come to school in such numbers, and in order then for him to return to school to give him the best chance at rehabilitation? So, it is a question on Protocol and it is a question on Protocol going forward.

I thank Mr de Souza. I think the question is not so much focused on why five. Because I agree with Mr de Souza that the focus should be on rehabilitation and the impact on the boy. Therefore, you focus on how many spoke with him. One officer spoke with him. The three officers who went down from NPC were the bridges between the Police and the school. When they go down, the school is familiar with these officers. They are able to know who to go to, who to speak with. There are regular interactions between the NPC and that school, not just that school, but schools in the neighbourhood and the communities. They are the bridges. They open the doors, they speak with the Principals, they speak with the teachers and they say, "This matter needs to be investigated, our officers from division are here". They smoothen the path. They were not present when the boy was interviewed. In fact, only one of the officers from the division was present. They went in unmarked cars in plain clothes. So, let us focus on what happened with the boy. He was interviewed by one officer.

I am not saying that one is always the right number. I think the point is, he must be interviewed in a way that is conducive for a fair, neutral approach to obtain the facts and to obtain the truth. I think that must be the fundamental aim. How you approach it is something that ground officers should be given the discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis. I am not going to go into it and say, "It should have been five or it should have been three or it should have been four". I think those are ground decisions that we should leave to the officers. But we should look at it and we will certainly look at this case. What did the boy see? He saw one officer at first and then three brought him back, one left the car so there were only two which is the minimum number that you will need in a car. And then he was interviewed by one officer in the division. So, you look at those facts.

I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for his explanation so far. I have two questions. One of them both Ministers can jointly answer. The first question is, will the Minister set the time frame or give a rough estimation as to when the Ministry hopes the reviews regarding the interview and handling of minors in Police custody will likely be completed.

The second question is addressed to both Ministries; or both Ministers can jointly consider answering this: let us say in a scenario where the Principal or the Police has already informed the parent of a pupil who is under investigation that the Police have come to the school, will MOE or indeed MHA consider allowing a suitable member of the staff to accompany the pupil, the minor, to the Police station until at least the parents turn up, or until the pupil is released from the Police station? I am not talking about the situation where the pupil is under interview, not at that stage. But what I am talking about is basically a member of the staff or allowing the parents to be at the Police Station but not during the interview so that, at the very least, there is some handing over between the school and the parents.

Madam, shall I ask my other two questions to the Minister for Education later? Or should I ask them now?

I thank the Member for his two questions. On the first point as to when the review would be completed, I have told my officials that we should start the work but we should hold back on any decisions until after the Coroner's Inquiry. Let the Coroner's Inquiry go through, let there be a finding, we will take reference from that. The second thing that we need to do and that is why I do not want to rush into it, is also maybe consult the stakeholders. I do not really want to start consulting stakeholders before the Coroner's Inquiry.

So, we will review it and that will really cover the Member's second point because in a sense, the Member's point is, can there be an adult accompanying the young person from school until he gets to the Police station? I think we will have to review those as part and parcel of this process. I have said earlier in my Statement that we will consider the suggestion of the Appropriate Adult scheme but I also pointed out the many considerations and why it is not so straightforward and some of the people involved would not be considered vulnerable either. I gave you a range of cases and I gave you three major reasons why one should take a pause before rushing to conclusions. So, those things have to be considered.

I want to assure Members and Mr Tan on one thing. The reason why I gave you the statistics about 70% flowing through as it were without a charge, some of them after investigations are not guilty, but some of them would, in Police's view be people who have committed an offence. But why is it that seven out of 10 are not charged? It is, therefore, not a Police versus a young person situation. The Police look at it as a stakeholder in a community to try and make sure the young person gets rehabilitated. That is why we place a lot of emphasis on the Guidance Programme.

We are very pleased with the results of the Guidance Programme at 89% success rate; but 11% recidivism. That means you have really moved the young person from one path to another path. As Mr Tan would know from practice, many of those who turn up in prison in their early 20s would often have had minor infractions in their teens. The experience of criminality is a very strong indicator of subsequent life of crime. A life wasted. So, for us, the way we want to approach it is, lives saved.

So, we will look at all suggestions to see how our process can be made better. But I do want to emphasise this, on the facts today, I cannot say that it was the processes that led to this tragic result. I have given you the facts that we have got to consider, but that does not mean that we sit back and say we do nothing. We will review and we will consider the point.

Madam, I think I have answered the questions on behalf of the Acting Minister for Education.

I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for his Statement. Losing a child is every parent's worst nightmare and every parent wants their sons and daughters to be safe. Yesterday, website  The Online Citizen  (TOC) quoted Benjamin's father as saying, "If not for social media, especially TOC, the case would have died down a long time ago." But the Minister said that Benjamin's father wanted to be out of the spotlight. Can the Minister help explain why the TOC article paints such a different picture of Benjamin's father?

First of all, the suggestion that this case would have died down long ago is ridiculous because there is going to be a Coroner's Inquiry. That is what normally happens when there is an unnatural death and an announcement was made on the 1 February, as I said, that is six days after the Police started investigating; on the sixth day. So, that is just absurd. But I am not saying that the father is saying absurd things; I do not want to assume that what I see in TOC is what the father says. But any such suggestion would be absurd.

What I can say is what the father said to us. On 24 February last week, he had told us in the presence of a number of officers that the family would prefer to keep the Coroner's Inquiry private. They felt pressurised by the media. They would appreciate if Police could inform the media not to publish the family's pictures or names, and I elaborated upon that in my Statement.

Mr Lim, the father, confirmed that yesterday with the Police. He told us yesterday that the family's earlier set of requests remained. He continued with the request that the media not harass him, that the family's privacy be respected and that the Coroner's Inquiry be held in private. That was yesterday, the same day the Member referred to this article coming out. Many possible explanations; I have not sought to ask why. Is it the case that the father is saying different things to different people? Or is it the case that, as usual, you cannot believe what you read on TOC? I do not know. Or could there be some other explanation? Your guess is as good as mine.

I would like to express my condolences to the family of Benjamin Lim. I also thank the Ministers for taking this case seriously to issue the Statements. My question is about the Appropriate Adult scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that it could be an imperfect scheme, I would like to ask the Minister to consider extending the scope of this current scheme. Currently, it covers persons with mental and intellectual disability only. In regimes like in the United Kingdom, the scope covers young people who are less than 18 years of age and also vulnerable adults who might have mental wellness issues or even dementia or other learning disabilities. So, I would like to ask the Minister to consider this.

The second question is: the current Appropriate Adult scheme in Singapore is manned by volunteers and run by charities. I think the scheme is important enough for the state to allocate some resources to ensure that at least people who are trained, not just trained for a short while only, people who are professionals, can operate the scheme on a sustainable basis. This is for Minister's consideration, please.

I assume on the second question, what the Member is really asking is whether we will pay for it. Yes, that is something that we would look at. I cannot give a guarantee on that but we will certainly look at.

On the first point, I have already said that both in my Statement and in answer to Dr Tan's question, that the review would cover this particular aspect as whether an Appropriate Adult should be present when young persons are interviewed. But I have taken some considerable pains to point out why it is not a straightforward issue and what are possible issues that might arise.

We have to balance between the need to move quickly, investigate, particularly when it is a serious crime, a terrorism-related issue, and balance that against the need for the young person to have some support. I have mentioned the systemic risk could be minimised as well. We will try but I just want to be very open, clear and transparent about our considerations as we look at this.

Madam, I have been in the Police Force for 20 years and I know public trust and public confidence in the Police are crucial for the Police to be effective. Can the Minister elaborate on his assessment of TOC's motivations, conduct and coverage of this tragic event?

It is quite clear from my Statement what I thought of the coverage. I think it is a calculated, cynical attempt to tar the Police using falsehoods. And I have said what should happen hereafter is not something I should be commenting on today.

Madam, as a parent of two teenagers, I deeply empathise with the families of both the deceased and the victim. For the Minister for Home Affairs, I understand the urgency the Police had in interviewing the deceased, but could the Police not have waited another half an hour or one hour until Benjamin's father or mother came to the Police station or the school before starting to interview him? Like what the Minister mentioned earlier, this is his first offence. He did not have any prior record, and as a 14-year-old whom I still regard as a child, he must have felt quite frightened to be there being interviewed by the Police without a significant adult present.

The other question: there are many speculations, accusations and unverified accounts on social media sites. In future, will the Ministry be more responsive and open to sharing more information in both print and online news media so as to make verifications or to dispel the accusations that are floating around?

I think the first question essentially raises the question whether we should have an Appropriate Adult present. What I have said is we had considered a lot of that very carefully previously and I have explained in my Statement the considerations. And I have said that we will review. We will do a review. We will look at the findings in the Coroner's Inquiry. We will consult stakeholders and we will decide. I have explained why we should not have knee-jerk reactions. I think I should express, as the Minister for Education has expressed, our condolences to Benjamin's family. And equally, we share the grief of the family of the 11-year-old girl because they are also grief-stricken. I think they all have the same feelings. As I said in my Statement, either child could have been a child of any of us. We got to approach it with that perspective.

At the same time, whether the Police should wait for the parents or somebody else to accompany, whether there should be someone else present, I think these are the same type of questions that Ms Denise Phua and Mr Dennis Tan have raised and which I myself have raised in my Statement. We will review it.

On the second point as to whether we will release more information, I have spent quite a bit of time explaining why in this case we actually decided not to go into the facts. I think it would be unseemly for this matter to get to a stage where there are series of allegations and counter allegations, and statements and counter statements with the families, the commentators, the Police – you will have a "free for all". That is precisely what legal proceedings are destined to avoid. We will have a proper process for finding out the facts. Otherwise, who is to say my truth is superior to your truth? I think we were right, we were observing the law but others were not so careful. In fact, they were cavalier and which has then required us to come out today and clarify.

I thank the two Ministers for their statements and condolences to both families. On the same track as what Member Intan has asked with regard to online reports, I think we cannot ignore the fact that the online media play a very important part in communication. In situations like that where it is very emotive and sensitive, while I totally understand the stance of handling the information very carefully and the sensitivity of sharing the information, is there a way that information, at least some information can be shared with online news sites in a way that would help, at least, not continue to fire these emotions in respect of the families? I know it is a very hard balance. The other thing is also, should online websites obtain and verify information of this nature before they post such articles?

I thank Ms Tan for that. But that sort of reverses the onus. It is not for them to make the allegations and then for us to respond. The law is the same on reporting before a pending hearing or inquiry; whether it is a physical world or online world, the law of contempt is the same. Everyone should observe it. Just because you are online does not mean that you get a free pass and you can say what you like.

So, we start with what is the law. As I said, you can raise some general issues; you can raise the issue of policy, whether in the media, physical media, print media, broadcast media or online media. What you cannot do is to make allegations of fact when those facts could be the subject matter of dispute or have to be found in an inquiry or would necessarily be part of what an inquiry would have to decide. It is even egregious when they are a bunch of lies.

I think the starting point is people who want to express their views have to be responsible and the law requires them to be responsible. We will be as open as is legally possible. Where it is possible, we will publish the information.

I thank the Minister for Education and the Minister for Home Affairs for the Statements. We understand that the Police is doing a review, but while Police is doing the review, would MOE consider assigning an MOE staff to accompany a student if he is brought back to the Police station from school, even though MOE staff may not be able to be in the same Police car or during the interview at the Police station. The mere presence of an MOE staff at the Police station before the parents arrive will give much assurance to the student while he is under Police custody.

I thank the Member for the suggestion. We are currently reviewing the whole process. It is currently premature to position one way or the other.

If you look at the process of the school, they would ensure that the well-being of the student is first taken care of when the Police moves the child or student to the Police station. And in the process, there would be no further contact between the school staff and the student. So, in the process of movement, the Police will be with the student in the Police car. And when they reach the Police station, the Police will have the interview process away from any waiting room.

At the end of the interview, when the parents are there, the handing over of the student will be to the direct care of the parents. So, the school staff essentially will have no contact with the student in the current Protocol.

In the review, we will be working with the Police to see what the review outcomes may be. If the Appropriate Adult accompanying is part of any recommendation, MOE will certainly consider getting our staff to be with the student.

A question for the Minister to let me understand the Protocol a bit better: at the moment, do the Principals of the schools have any discretion at all to decide whether or not to release their pupils for questioning by the Police in school or to the custody of the Police? If they do have such discretion, perhaps the Minister could share with us what are some of the guidelines for this discretion.

The second question is more of a suggestion for the current review: would the Ministry consider requiring the Principals to inform the parents of any pupil immediately upon the arrival of the Police at the school to interview the pupil or to take the pupil into custody, rather than to advise or inform the Police to inform the parents?

I thank the Member for the questions. In the current process, the Principals under the law have no such discretion. When the Police invite or take someone for an interview, it is up to the Police to decide where and when the interview would take place. But over time, the schools and the Police have worked together to ensure that the well-being of the students are taken care of.

On the second part, each incident is unique and at what stage the Principal would get the student to call the parents will all be contextualised. In this particular instance, where the interview was in a calm manner, the whole eight-step process could carry through as how I have articulated. But in certain instances and context, you would understand that the real ground processes may be somewhat more flexible.

And also, in answer to the Member's earlier question, the Minister for Home Affairs has pretty much answered most of it. I would just like to emphasise that we are open to review and adapt our processes where needed to make sure that the students could be accompanied if the review conclusions allow us to do so.

I thank both Ministers for the clarifications. Firstly, my condolences to the family of Benjamin Lim for the passing of their son. My question is this: for MOE, how many times in the past three years has the same Protocol been applied in the schools? Secondly, in terms of the impact to the students, has there been any adverse impact to students and their parents? Has MOE received any feedback or comments from parents with regard to this Protocol, where Police comes to the school to do investigations?

And thirdly, what measures are in place in schools to help students, I think "rehabilitation" is the key word used earlier, rehabilitate and integrate back into school life once investigations are over? I am sure in this era of social media, friends will talk and if it goes around, there will be other implications.

And, specifically, for this particular case, did the school interview friends? I suppose in schools, cyber bullying is one aspect; other aspects are rumours and other things that go round in social media or on Whatsapp or social media platforms. Was there such evidence that this may have happened that led to his choice of actions?

Mdm Speaker, let me take the last question first. At this stage, we do not yet know the reasons for Benjamin's decision to end his life, whether it is social media or other factors> It is premature to make any conclusions. So, I will just leave it as that.

For the statistics: over the last three years or so, across all the different schools, we have close to 1,500 per year. So, it is about 4,500 over three years. It is not a small number. These processes that we have adopted are practised and refined over this period of time.

When the school takes the student back, the balance between confidentiality and rehabilitation is a very delicate one. The counsellors, some are trained with the National Institute of Education (NIE) and some of them are even ex-teachers. They would be able to contextualise their approaches to counselling according to the needs of the students, depending on the severity of the case, how emotionally impacted the student may be. All these would be factors that the counsellors would have to take into consideration and make his or her judgement to tailor the counselling.

In terms of feedback, I do not have the information with me. I do apologise. I will share that feedback with you offline.

Mdm Speaker, the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out that there are complex psychological grounds to suicide. I will add that the young persons are especially vulnerable in terms of the stage of their mental development to suicide risk.

I would like to ask the Education Minister whether school counsellors are trained to do psychological assessments on suicide risk and whether such assessments are, and should be required, when students are being interviewed by the Police.

Mdm Speaker, the school counsellors, as far as I know at this stage, are trained to do basic assessment. If they do think that there are added risks, they will refer the student to psychiatric help or a psychologist's help outside the school, in the hospitals or in other clinics.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for the indulgence. Was Benjamin taken for questioning by the Police during school hours? If so, from what I understand, during school hours, permission is required from the parents or legal guardian before students can leave the school.

My second question is: should the school counsellor or a school staff member not have met Benjamin and the mother or the father in person to find out whether Benjamin would want to continue with the school camp, rather than doing that through a phone call?

To the first question, Mdm Speaker, the answer is yes, it was during school hours. With the current laws of Singapore, there is no need for consent from the parents when Police want to interview a student or any person in particular. I think the Minister for Home Affairs can confirm that. I am not an expert in that area, but that is as far as I can understand.

And I did not get the Member's second question. Can she please repeat that?

We must move back to the incident without hindsight. For such an incident where the processes are in place for the counsellor to consult with the mother to see how Benjamin is doing, it is very reasonable.

Of course, with hindsight of what has happened, we can always do better. These are the things that we can review. But in terms of calling the parent to check on how Benjamin was doing, it is not an unreasonable thing to do.

Even then, the decision for Benjamin to go to camp or not, was one that was discussed and mutually agreed upon. It is a very tragic incident, no doubt, but at the moment, we really do not know what was the trigger for Benjamin.

Mdm Speaker, clarification on a point the Education Minister seemed to have missed out; which is whether the psychological assessments for suicide risk are required, or should be required, when students are being interviewed by the Police. This may or may not imply that the school counsellors should be present during the interview. I will leave it to the Education Minister to answer the question.

At the moment, I do not quite have the details. Perhaps, in another occasion where a PQ is filed, I can get back to the Member on these specific details.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for his Statement. I would like to ask the Acting Minister for Education if currently, there is any regime in place for students who are being investigated by the Police, and if that investigation may lead on to them being charged with a crime, to provide those students with some kind of aftercare, after their interview with the Police and while their investigation is going on; to provide them with counselling, advice, a hotline that they can turn to for help and so on? Is there such a regime in place? If not, will the current review process consider putting in place such a regime, whereby that kind of help can be given to young persons who are being investigated? That can come about, perhaps, by way of the Ministry and the schools working with Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) or Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) and so on?

I thank the Member for the suggestion. Currently, the cases are handled on a case-by-case basis. When the student comes back to the school, the counsellor and the teachers will get with the student and the parents to render support and work through what may be the needed steps.

Beyond the school, the counsellor also has networks with the Family Services Centres (FSCs). If there is a need for further counselling besides the school and beyond the school, referrals are made to the FSCs to extend this help. But, certainly, I will take up the Member's suggestion on whether a regime could be set up to better tailor to the needs of such students.