Bail Decisions, Monitoring of Persons Under Investigation and Child Protection in Sexual Offence Cases

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent case where an individual allegedly committed further sexual offences against minors after being arrested and released on police bail for an earlier sexual offence, whether the Police (i) considers an accused person’s access to minors when determining bail conditions and (ii) where warranted, imposes restrictions on contact with minors and coordinates with other agencies.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the individual recently sentenced for sexual offences against minors, first arrested in 2021 for molesting a 17-year-old and released on bail the same day (a) whether any monitoring or supervision was imposed after the 2021 arrest; and (b) whether the authorities were aware that the individual continued to present himself publicly as a religious figure while interacting with minors.

Mr Sharael Taha asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent case where an individual previously arrested for an alleged sexual offence involving a minor subsequently committed sexual offences against younger children while on police bail, whether the Police will review its risk assessment, bail conditions and safeguards for persons under investigation for sexual offences involving minors.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will first address Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 in the Order Paper on bail conditions and measures relating to individuals under investigation for sexual offences against minors, before I address Question Nos 6 and 7 on screening measures for individuals applying for roles involving contact with children and young persons. Acting Minister Zaqy will then answer Question Nos 8 to 15 relating to strengthening safeguards in mosques and religious institutions. We will then take questions from the House.

Let me first take Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 in the Order Paper together.

The recently concluded case involving an individual who committed sexual offences against minors is of deep concern to all of us. I will share some case facts first, before answering the various questions.

The individual in question was arrested in December 2021, following an allegation that he had committed outrage of modesty against a 17-year-old youth. Arrested persons must be released on bail by the Police, unless he is charged in Court and the Court exercises the power to order otherwise.

In this case, further investigations were necessary to decide whether the person could be charged. The allegation against the individual was being denied and he had no prior record of similar offences. He was therefore released on bail, with the following bail conditions imposed: (a) to report at a place and time as directed; (b) not to commit any offence while on bail; and (c) not to interfere with any witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

After his release on bail, the individual reported to the Police regularly, as required.

A fundamental principle of our criminal justice system is that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of law. The Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. In most cases, once an offender is charged in Court, he must be offered bail unless the offence is a non-bailable one. The Court will consider whether there is clear public interest to deny bail, such as where the offender has committed a serious offence that indicates he is a danger to the public, has shown a risk of re-offending while on bail, or may obstruct justice by absconding or tampering with witnesses. These factors were not present in December 2021 when the individual was arrested.

For additional context, there were 762 cases of outrage of modesty reported in the first half of 2026. It will not be correct that all these accused persons should automatically be in jail, even before the investigations are concluded. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the principles that underpin criminal justice in Singapore.

While the Police may impose additional conditions to mitigate the risk of re-offending, such conditions must be clear, practicable and necessary. They may include prohibiting an accused person from contacting the victim or witnesses. But it would not have been reasonable to impose a broad restriction on contact with all minors, nor would it have been possible to monitor every aspect of his conduct and public activities while investigations were ongoing.

If the Police are made aware that an accused person had committed an offence while on bail, they may charge the accused in Court with stronger grounds to object to bail being offered.

In this case, a subsequent report was made in 2024, alleging that the same individual had committed rape while on bail. Such an allegation is obviously serious. There was also substantive evidence supporting the allegation.

This fundamentally changed the assessment. The Police then moved swiftly to arrest and charge him in Court. The Police objected to bail on public safety grounds, and he was remanded until he was convicted and sentenced.

As has been explained in this House before, the Police generally do not disclose the names of individuals who are being investigated, including to other agencies. There must be a clear public interest to do so. In making this assessment, the Police must consider whether further harm would likely arise from non-disclosure and whether informing another agency can prevent or mitigate such harm. In this case, the individual was not a registered asatizah. There was also no evidence that he held any formal appointment, role or affiliation with the mosque. He was an individual who engaged in informal religious sharing in his private capacity. On this basis, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura or MUIS) was not informed in 2021.

Cases like this are deeply troubling and weigh heavily on all of us – as parents, as members of our communities and as a society. It is only right that we ask what all of us could have done to prevent this. The family is the first line of defence – parents and caregivers are best placed to notice early warning signs. The wider community, including religious communities and social networks, can also help to observe patterns of behaviour, identify those who may be exploiting positions of trust and help intervene early. And the Police and other agencies provide the institutional framework, for dealing with offences. We will continue to safeguard our young, while protecting the rights of persons who may have not yet been found guilty. This is a balance that we need to strike.

Next, let me move on and address questions on what additional measures we can put in place to better protect our children from those who may seek to exploit positions of trust and access. This will be Question Nos 6 and 7 in today's Order Paper.