Hansard, Wednesday, 4 November 2020

1 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education what is the current percentage of children who enter Primary 1 without completing at least three years of preschool (including nursery, kindergarten 1 and kindergarten 2).

For the cohort of Singaporean children who entered Primary 1 in 2019, about nine in 10 were enrolled in preschools from age four onwards and would have had at least three years in preschool. At least 99% would have had some preschool experience before starting Primary 1.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the quick reply. I would like to ask, of this percentage of children – although it is just one in 10 – were there any studies done to see or to track their progress: one, over their academic progression or performance; and two, over their physical or health literacy across their Primary and Secondary school days.

If there were studies made, would the Minister of State be able to share with us the data, and if there were no studies, would one be conducted in the future?

I thank the Member for his questions. We currently do not track the outcomes of children who did not attend preschool and into Primary school and beyond. This is something we can look into.

But I would like to add several other interventions that we are doing. Firstly, we recognise the importance of preschool education in the early years for a child's development, in particular, for those who come from less advantaged backgrounds. MSF and ECDA have thus been working very hard to ensure the provision of accessible, affordable as well as quality preschool services. This is to ensure that every child would have a good start in life.

We also follow up with proactive outreach and targeted assistance to facilitate the enrolment of those children from less advantaged backgrounds. For instance, via ECDA's Preschool Outreach Programme, we work actively with the community to reach out to families of Singaporean children aged three years and above who are not attending preschool. Our community outreach partners will conduct house visits and work closely with the families to facilitate their child's enrolment into preschool. This can also take the form of helping them with registration forms and seeing what other impediments they may face.

We are also expanding the KidSTART programme, which specifically supports children in the areas that the Member mentioned – health, nutritional needs. We likewise work with the families through house visits, get to know the families better, get to know the children better, to see how we can support them to ensure that there is regular attendance at preschool.

One other thing that I wanted to mention is that we also have another gateway at Primary 1 are screened in the first term to see if they need additional help through the Learning Support Programme or Learning Support for Mathematics.

Those are the various interventions we put in place to ensure that children have access to quality preschool, that is accessible and affordable. For children who may not have had regular attendance in preschool, when they come to Primary 1, we still have interventions to make sure that they do not lag behind.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

I have two supplementary questions. Will MOE consider making preschool part of compulsory education and also, to increase the KiFAS minimum requirement of one-day attendance per month to qualify for the subsidy, which is the current status? We need to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds attend preschool more regularly.

I thank the Member for her questions. As I had shared earlier, we recognise the importance of the preschool years in a child's development, particularly for children from less advantaged backgrounds. But we also recognise that it is important to preserve some parental choice because they may also have some views on how they would like to educate children in the early years. Some of them may feel that there is some advantage in some forms of home-schooling, for instance. So, rather than a broad policy of compulsory education in the preschool years, what we have strived to do is to ensure that there is accessible, affordable and quality preschool, so that for any family who has a child and wants to put the child through preschool, there are options available for them.

In my earlier answer to Member Dr Wan Rizal, I have shared various interventions – be it through KidSTART or through the outreach programmes that we have where we build connectivity with families to enable them and support them in sending their children to preschool.

On the second question from the Member, the Ministry will take a look at the suggestion that she made.

2 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the criteria and process to prefer charges for capital offences.

Mr Speaker, capital offences are very serious offences, such as murder, kidnapping, firearms offences and trafficking large quantities of drugs.

In cases where preliminary investigations reveal that a capital offence may have been committed by an accused person, a holding charge will be tendered against the accused person in Court. The accused person will be held in remand while further investigations are conducted.

After law enforcement agencies have completed their investigations, they will make their recommendations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers or AGC. AGC will review the evidence and the circumstances of the case holistically, before exercising its prosecutorial discretion to decide on an appropriate course of action – whether to proceed with the capital charge, lesser charge or charges, or to withdraw the charge.

Where there are multiple accused persons allegedly involved in the same capital case, the same holding charge may be tendered against all of them initially. After investigations are completed, AGC will consider the sufficiency of the evidence gathered so far, and the specific role of each accused person. The eventual position taken against each accused person would be based on the evidence available and their role in the case, and may therefore differ.

I will illustrate this with the Downtown East incident in 2010. In the incident, the victim was attacked by a group of 12 Chinese persons in the aftermath of a settlement talk. Five of the 12 accused persons had armed themselves with knives, a screwdriver and a bottle of chilli sauce prior to the settlement talk. During the talk, the accused persons accused the victim of staring at them. They surrounded the victim. Those armed used their weapons to stab and slash the victim, while others punched the victim. The victim eventually passed away due to multiple incised wounds.

Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against the accused persons. After consideration of the evidence available and the roles played by the accused persons in the incident, the charges were amended to rioting for those who had known that there would be a fight, but did not know that others in their group were armed; rioting with a deadly weapon for those who had known that there would be a fight and that others in their group were armed; and culpable homicide not amounting to murder for those armed and actively attacking the victim. Members can see the different categories of involvement.

In line with their respective roles in the incident, the accused persons in the first group received sentences of about three to five years’ imprisonment and three to six strokes of the cane; those in the second group received sentences of five to six years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane; and those in the third group received sentences of seven to 12 years’ imprisonment and five to 12 strokes of the cane.

I will illustrate with another incident which took place around Pandan Loop in 2014. There were four Indian accused persons, which I will refer to as “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. Prior to the attack, “A” told the three other accused persons that “A” and “B” would beat up the victim, “C” would act as a lookout and “D” would wait in the pick-up. “A” and “B” then took a metal rod each from the back of the pick-up and walked towards the Pandan Loop industrial estate. The victim was subsequently found dead from head injuries due to direct blunt force trauma. “A” fled Singapore for India shortly after the incident.

Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against “B”, “C” and “D”. Subsequently, there was careful consideration of the evidence and the respective roles played by them. It was noted that “A” was the main perpetrator and the three other accused persons knew that metal rods would be used before the incident, but there was no prior discussion to cause death to the victim. The charges against the three accused persons were therefore amended to voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon with common intention. “B” was eventually sentenced to three years nine months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane, while “C” and “D” were sentenced to three years six months’ imprisonment.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for the clarification and answer. As a lawyer, I fully appreciate and understand the sentencing precedents and principles. Every case depends on its specific facts and extenuating circumstance, and not all of these facts may be readily available or obviously apparent to members of the public or the media.

So, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State, if I may. There has been some public discussion on the sentences handed out in the Orchard Towers case. Can I ask the Minister of State's view on the sentences meted out and whether this is in accordance with the precedents and sentencing principles that have been clarified earlier?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we are aware of the public discussions on the Orchard Towers case. I think the common feedback that we received is that some of the sentences given look light, considering that someone has been killed.

As I have explained earlier in my reply, for cases like that where it involves multiple offenders, the eventual charges and also the resultant sentences have to take into account of the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons. Sir, if I may, since the Member asked about the Orchard Towers case, I would like to share some insights of the case and see how we can share and really see that the sentences that had been rolled out, had been looking at the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons, and so that it gives a clarity to the public as well.

In the Orchard Towers case, there are seven accused persons. Four have pleaded guilty to the respective charges. Proceedings for the other three accused persons are on-going.

Let me briefly recap the case. The seven accused persons were drinking at Orchard Towers. When the group was leaving Orchard Towers, the deceased confronted them. Four of the seven accused – Tan Sen Yang, Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow Yu Zhen and Joel Tan Yun Sheng – got into a fight with the deceased.

Tan Sen Yang was allegedly in possession of a knife and slashed the deceased a few times. The deceased eventually passed away from the knife injuries. Tan Sen Yang has been charged for murder and the section 300(c) of the penal code. This offence carries the death penalty or life imprisonment with caning. His case is still on-going.

Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan kicked and punched the deceased during the fight. They did not plan to assault the deceased and did not know Tan Sen Yang would use a weapon during the fight. As the attack by Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan caused two minor and non-fatal abrasions on the deceased body, they were eventually charged with, and pleaded guilty to voluntary causing hurt with common intention.

As only abrasions were caused, Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan would have been liable for a fine only, based on the sentencing guidelines set in a High Court judgment. However, taking into account the aggravating factors, such as their involvement in group violence and the public disquiet caused given that the fight took place in public, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan were given one months' imprisonment. As Ang Da Yuan had previously been convicted of violent crime offences, he was given a higher sentence of two months' imprisonment.

As Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan knew that Tan Sen Yang was carrying a weapon, but continued to remain in his company, they were also charged with consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. Ang Da Yuan was given another six months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, while Natalie Siow was given another five months' imprisonment which was served concurrently with the other sentence, but no caning as she is a female. This charge was taken into consideration in sentencing for Joel Tan. These sentences were consistent with the sentencing benchmarks set by the Courts.

The remaining three accused persons, Tan Hong Sheng, Loo Boon Chong and Chan Jia Xing were not involved in the fight.

That said, Tan Hong Sheng and Loo Boon Chong each face a pending charge of consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. Loo Boon Chong also faces a pending charge of perverting the course of justice. Their cases are on-going.

Chan Jia Xing tried to stop the fight and was co-operative with Police investigations. Hence, he was given a 12-month conditional warning for consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. He has been warned that no leniency would be accorded to him should he re-offend during this period, and he may still be charged for the offence.

There were also some comments that the accused persons have received lenient sentences because of their race. These allegations are totally baseless and highly irresponsible. I assure the House that our criminal justice system does not give any preferential treatment based on race, religion, socio-economic status, educational achievements and so on. Everyone is treated equally and fairly.

As I have explained, the sentences eventually given to an accused, depends on the evidence and his role. In the Downtown East example I gave earlier, the sentences given out to the 12 Chinese offenders ranged from three years and three strokes of the cane, to 12 years and 12 strokes of the cane.

Sir, if I may, I will give another example – the St James Power Station incident in 2017. There were four Malay accused persons, which I will refer to as "A", "B", "C" and "D". After an argument between "A" and the Indian victim's group in a club at St James Power Station, "A" felt aggrieved and contacted "B" who rallied "C" and "D" to arrive at the club, with the intention to attack the victim's group. When "B" stepped away for a phone call, "C" who was armed with a foldable knife, punched the victim and stabbed him repeatedly, while "A" and "D" punched and kicked the victim. The victim died from stab wounds to the thorax and head. When "B" returned to the club entrance later, the attack by "A", "C" and "D" had already been completed.

Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against the accused persons. After consideration of the evidence available and the roles played by the accused persons, the charges were amended.

First, only "C" was charged with murder, as he brought along and used a weapon. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

Second, "D" was charged with voluntary causing grievous hurt with common intention. He was sentenced to eight years six months' imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane. Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with common intention was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Third, "A" was charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt with common intention. He was sentenced to five years six months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapon with common intention was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Fourth, "B" was charged with harbouring of offenders. He was sentenced to one year six months' imprisonment, and another charge of abetment of voluntarily causing hurt was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Overall, the offenders' charges in this case reflected the premeditated plan to attack the deceased, their respective culpability and involvement and the sentences imposed were similarly consistent with sentencing benchmarks. So, let me emphasise again: there is no preferential treatment based on race, religion, socio-economic status or educational achievements.

Miss Cheng Li Hui, next question.

3 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health regarding the possible Phase Three opening by end-December 2020 (a) what factors are taken into account when deciding on the maximum number of people allowed for gatherings, weddings and other events; (b) what will be the safeguards and measures in place to ensure compliance when more activities resume on a larger scale; and (c) what plans are in place should there be a spike of COVID-19 cases in Phase Three and whether that includes reversion to Phase Two.

Mr Speaker, the Multi-Ministry Task Force announced our road map to Phase Three on 20 October 2020. Just to recap, Phase Three is not a return to the pre-COVID-19 status quo, but a new normal which will last until such time the rest of the world also has the virus under tight control or when effective treatments or vaccines are widely available. We must prepare ourselves for a Phase Three that could last for a prolonged period – potentially a year or more. In this context, we need to put in place the measures and equip ourselves with the tools which will enable us to stay safe, as we allow greater flexibility to live, work and even celebrate major life events.

In determining the capacity limits for events in Phase Three, we took into account various factors such as the frequency at which the activity takes place, the potential risk factors inherent to the nature of the event and whether additional safety measures can be effectively put in place to limit or mitigate these risks.

Our analysis of how COVID-19 transmission takes place indicates that the probability of transmission tends to be higher in social settings. In Singapore, we saw large clusters forming due to the SAFRA Jurong dinner and the Mei Hwan Drive condominium family get-together which took place over Chinese New Year. It is natural to lower our guard when we are among family and friends.

When we have meals together, the risk is higher as masks must be removed while eating and drinking. Many of us go out for meals practically every day and with different groups, the risk is multiplied many times. Hence, we have taken a cautious approach in expanding group sizes. We are considering an increase in the group size limit from the current five persons to eight persons in Phase Three for dining and social gathering. Taking banquet tables as an example, many used to seat around 10 people before COVID-19. So, eight persons is about the maximum that these tables can take while allowing some additional distancing compared to the past.

As the World Health Organization puts it, any size of gathering poses a risk of COVID-19 transmission. That is why many countries facing a surge in COVID-19 infections have had to impose lockdowns and prohibit social gatherings. But disallowing social gatherings for prolonged period of time is not tenable nor desirable. We need to strike a balance. So, while we now allow social gatherings, we should still limit our circle of close contacts to reduce the risk of spread to a large number of people if an infected person happens to be in the group. Therefore, allowing gatherings of up to eight in Phase Three, strikes a careful balance between maintaining safe distancing and allowing large groups to come together.

In settings where safe management measures can be effectively imposed to mitigate risks and where interactions between different groups can be managed, we can allow a higher capacity limit, especially for important events. Weddings, for example, are key milestones in life, where friends and family come together to celebrate this joyous occasion. These, however, are high risk settings, as friends and family would naturally have the tendency to want to socialise and mix across groups and often unmasked as we allow food and drinks too. We have seen clusters arising from weddings in places as diverse as India, Jordan, New Zealand, the United States and many other countries.

However, there have been pleas to raise the cap on number of wedding participants beyond the current limit of 100 in zones or timeslots of no more than 50 each. For such high risk events, we will need to put in place additional measures to ensure that they can be conducted safely. For example, guests are already not supposed to mingle beyond their groups of five at their table and they must use SafeEntry and TraceTogether. This allows more family and friends to participate, while still minimising the total number of interactions.

Going forward, one key enabler that could allow more activities to resume, and potentially at higher capacity limits, is COVID-19 testing. We are piloting the use of pre-event testing to allow higher risk activities including weddings to scale up safely, by reducing the probability of a COVID-19 case being present at the event, thereby reducing the risk of transmission. Given the need for a short turnaround time for such testing prior to the events, we are using alternative test kits such as antigen rapid tests which can return fairly accurate results quickly, within half an hour or so. However, they are not as accurate as the Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR tests which remains the definitive test for the confirmation of COVID-19 cases. As such, while pre-event testing helps to reduce the probability that a COVID-positive case is present at the event, it cannot eliminate it totally, and safe management measures will still have to be observed at the event.

Another key enabler is a enhanced contact tracing capability. We are progressively rolling out TraceTogether-only SafeEntry to ensure that all those who are visiting places where they are likely to be in contact with many others for prolonged periods, or where human traffic is high, have the TraceTogether App or Token. This is to speed up contact tracing efforts should someone you had been in close contact with at the event become a COVID-19 patient, and to allow us to provide you with medical care early if you become infected.

The Government will continue to work with businesses and premise owners to ensure that they maintain the appropriate safe management measures, and regularly remind their employees and associates to comply with these measures. Our Safe Distancing Ambassadors and Enforcement Officers will be on the ground to advise the public on safe distancing measures and take enforcement actions where necessary. We must set the right spirit across society and make sure all of us remain committed to maintaining the discipline that will keep us safe, even if we progress to Phase Three. In fact, even more so when we progress to Phase Three.

Our objective in Phase Three is to reach a steady state of permitted economic and social activities until an effective vaccine or treatment is widely available. If we can put in place more enablers and risk-mitigating measures that allow for further opening and scaling up of activities, we will. On the other hand, if and where conditions worsen, we will take targeted measures too. We must not let our guard down and become lax in adherence to safe management measures, as so doing could result in a resurgence of COVID-19 cases, putting all our sacrifices thus far to waste.

While we are in a much better position today than we were earlier in the year to manage possible spikes in the number of cases, we must not be complacent. We have ramped up our healthcare capacity, contact tracing and testing capabilities, and put in place extensive safe management measures in the community, workplaces and dormitories. We have set up our defences at our borders, so that even as we welcome business partners and friends from overseas back to Singapore, we will be able to do so safely. However, we must remain vigilant. Should there be a spike in cases, we need to respond swiftly and decisively. We cannot rule out the need to re-impose measures or introduce new measures in order to keep the virus under control.

To continue on our steady path to Phase Three, each of us must play our part to adhere to safe management measures, maintain good personal hygiene and actively participate in the TraceTogether programme. Together, we will arrive at Phase Three and emerge stronger ultimately.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

Some do not want to attend the large-scale events, even weddings because of their fear of doing the tests. Couples have given feedback that some of the elderly and their guests will actually decline the wedding invitations. They are saying it is actually like restaurant dining, but just that there are 10 tables of five each and the rule of no inter-table mingling is allowed as well. Can that be considered as the way for weddings?

This is a question that the taskforce has debated to and fro, and we have decided that we need to calibrate our measures very carefully. We do understand the concerns of guests including the wedding party. But we have to bear in mind that wedding dinners are quite different from a similar dinner at a restaurant. If you go to a restaurant with, say, 10 tables with five persons each, that would be 50. It is quite different from a wedding dinner reception with 50 people. Because if you do go to a restaurant with 10 tables of five each, chances are not all of them know each other. The intermingling between the tables is very minimal. We do allow families now to go together and book two tables, but we also encourage them to minimise intermingling.

But at a wedding reception, it is quite different. Even before you go into the wedding dinner, they will be socialising outside the event and in the banquet hall. Even if you try to enforce, it is very difficult. You really do not want to have to stop the wedding, disrupt the wedding and issue them summons, while the wedding is on-going. So, it is something that we need to calibrate very carefully.

And also bearing in mind that in the wedding environment, we do expect the wedding couple to take pictures with different tables, different groups. We also try to mitigate the risk exposure, as they do so. There are some rules but it is not possible to prohibit photo-taking. So, we understand the needs of the wedding couple and we try to accommodate, but the risk factor is quite different from a normal dinner.

On top of that, all of us who have attended wedding dinners also know that wedding dinners sometimes can stretch to a couple of hours or even longer, whereas a normal dinner tends to be much shorter.

So, although they may seem similar, actually the risk factors are quite different. And this has also been borne out in the wedding celebrations in other countries that we have seen, that have culminated into big clusters. Therefore, we want to be careful.

We do understand that the pre-event testing, antigen rapid tests, can be frightening and scary. That is why we are doing pilot testing to make sure that it is reasonably comfortable. But, of course, there is still some inconvenience that you have to face with. If you are tested positive, unfortunately, your plan to attend the wedding may be squashed. Therefore, for the couple, we encourage them to go for testing even before the day of the wedding dinner because you do not really want to disrupt the couple themselves if they were already at the dinner.

So, be assured that we are looking at this quite thoroughly. And we are doing pilots so that we can iron out some of these issues and concerns that the wedding couples may have. But as it is today, you do not have to go for testing, you can have a wedding up to a hundred, with groups of no more than 50 each. You can have three tables, four tables, but no more than 50 per group, and each table must have no more than five persons. So, this is the current rule on weddings. Under the current rule, you are not required to be tested but we are looking at whether we can allow larger capacity. If we were to do so, we have to seriously consider whether we will require pre-event testing for such gatherings.

4 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the TraceTogether tokens have been distributed to all seniors; and (b) how does the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office ensure that citizens without smart phones and who have not been able to collect the TraceTogether token are able to access cinemas.

Mr Speaker, as of 1 November, we have issued 570,000 TraceTogether or TT tokens. We started distribution in areas with a higher proportion of elderly residents, such as Tanjong Pagar and Jalan Besar. We have partnered with the Silver Generation Office to distribute TT tokens to seniors at their homes. We have also worked with the Agency for Integrated Care and MSF to distribute TT tokens to residents of nursing homes and community care facilities.

By now, residents of Jalan Besar, Tanjong Pagar, Bishan-Toa Payoh, Sengkang, Ang Mo Kio, Marsiling, Fuchun and Woodgrove would also have been able to collect a TT token at their Community Centres or CCs. Over the next few weeks, we will be gradually opening up collection points at all the remaining CCs across Singapore. Residents with a smart phone can use the TraceTogether app and do not need a TraceTogether token, but they are still able to collect a TT token should they wish to do so. We are preparing for the implementation of TraceTogether-only-SafeEntry at more venues, including at food and beverage outlets, malls and workplaces, with either the TraceTogether token or the TraceTogether app.

We will implement this – TraceTogether-only SafeEntry – at such venues when everyone who cannot download the TraceTogether app, has had a chance to collect their TraceTogether token. Meanwhile, other modes of SafeEntry check-ins will still be valid, in cinemas and other venues, as we allow time for TraceTogether token collection and for more residents to download the TraceTogether app, and for businesses to adjust.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and I would like to raise two supplementary questions to the Minister. If Speaker would allow me, I just want to share a bit of the context, so that the questions can be better understood.

Keep it brief. Thank you.

On 25 October, collection of TraceTogether tokens took place at the Clementi Mall. It was advertised on the TokenGoWhere website and I am told it was the first such collection to physically take place in Clementi town. My residents tell me the collection at the mall started at 11.00 am; 12 minutes later, my residents were told the tokens were no longer in stock; they had been fully distributed.

So, my question to the Senior Minister of State is as follows. Can the Minister tell us how many TraceTogether tokens were allocated for distribution at the Clementi Mall that day and, more broadly, for the heartland mall distribution sites, compared to potential demand in Clementi Town? Secondly, what lessons can we draw from the early distribution experiences, so that the Ministries can improve forecasting of demand including surge demand and pent-up demand?

Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his questions. We had designated the Community Centres as the main collection point for residents to collect their tokens. But on an opportunistic basis, early in this process, we had planned to set up mobile booths at selected shopping malls around Singapore for a variety of reasons: one, to make it more convenient; and the other is to also raise awareness and participation. Our assumptions at that time were that the people, who these tokens were designed for – people who perhaps did not have a smart phone or who were reluctant to use a smart phone – were not so aware of the programme and, perhaps, needed some degree of persuasion to join the programme. Hence, we had this plan to set up these pop-up booths in malls such as Clementi Mall.

We distributed 762 tokens at Clementi Mall on 25 October. The original plan was for the booth and all the booths to open for about four hours – 11 am to 3 pm. But indeed, the demand was very high. And so, we started distributing tokens early, at 10.30 am that morning, and extended the distribution all the way to 3.30 pm to allow the clearance of the queue of people who had come to collect their tokens.

Dr Tan asked about the lessons learnt. Firstly, we had not projected such high demand. We had anticipated that there would be a need to persuade more people to come and get on board the TraceTogether programme. Actually, we are very heartened by the response. It shows that residents understand the value of this digitally augmented contact tracing in keeping us all safe, they are convinced and understand all the various protections we have put in place and the intent behind this programme. The concern at that time was whether or not there will be enough demand. So, we wanted to be prudent in terms of the production and we launched the process early even as production was ramping up.

And so, the lesson learnt was at that time, we did not expect the surge in demand that had occurred. Now that we understand that that is so, we have ramped up production. We have monitored the situation, we will adjust our supply accordingly and we will increase the supply to keep up with demand as needed.

We had also planned for residents to pick up tokens from the CCs near them and we had not anticipated the extent to which people from all around Singapore would go to a various venues in order to collect the TraceTogether token. Hence, we have altered our distribution plan so that CCs are distributing tokens only to residents of that area.

But I would like to repeat the earlier point that we will only implement TraceTogether only SafeEntry process at venues when everyone who cannot download the app has had a chance to collect a TraceTogether token. I also want to reiterate that if you have the TraceTogether app on your phone, you do not need a token, although you are free to collect one.

We have discontinued distribution at mobile booths at the malls given my earlier comments, to avoid the queues and to avoid encouraging Singapore to travel all over to get these TraceTogether tokens. Dr Tan would perhaps like to know that residents of Clementi will be able to pick up their TraceTogether tokens at Clementi CC from 16 November onwards.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, if I may ask the Senior Minister of State, whether he can confirm that it is no longer compulsory for the TraceTogether token to be used at cinemas because it was reported in the press that it is compulsory with effect from 16 November 2020, whereas my constituency, my residents would only be able to get their TraceTogether tokens on 14 December, which is almost one month later. It is not just for Mountbatten but Marine Parade as well – Speaker's constituency, we will only be able to get it on 14 December and quite a number of our residents are quite senior.

The other question that I have for the Senior Minister of State is, what if the TraceTogether tokens are damaged or run out of battery or the battery is discharged? What is the process of replacement? Because, if everyone has already sort of collected and it is then made compulsory in venues like shopping malls, schools, cinemas, restaurants and if my token is damaged or the battery runs out, is it difficult to get a replacement? Because if it is, that means I cannot go anywhere until I get the replacement. Perhaps Senior Minister of State can clarify that.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for the questions. We will make sure that the roll-out plan with distribution to the various CCs has happened before the TraceTogether-only SafeEntry programme is made compulsory. But once we have given everybody a chance to collect the token, once we have given everybody a chance to download the app, then for these higher risk activities, these higher risk venues, we need a way to make sure that we can open up and have these activities and yet protect the progress that we have made in the COVID-19 pandemic fight.

And in order to have these higher risk activities, entry into those activities will require that the participant uses both SafeEntry and TraceTogether, the two limbs of our digital augmented contact tracing process. The way in which we do that, is we bring both processes together, using either the app or the token. Until the distribution is completed, other means of doing SafeEntry, such as using your NRIC will be available at these venues.

We will have a clear plan for replacement of damaged tokens or changing out the batteries for those batteries that are exhausted. We are going to have to calibrate that over time. At the moment, as I said earlier on, we had an unexpected surge in demand, so we are focusing our efforts on that. In the next few months, we will have to think of a replacement plan for one million tokens or two million tokens or whatever the number is in between.

So, I think after we get close to the end of our distribution process and we have a sense of what it is we have to manage over time, on a rolling basis, then we will come out and make it very clear how residents can exchange their tokens, replace their tokens, where and what the process will be. In the mean time, residents with damaged tokens or tokens with depleted batteries can go to CCs where tokens are being distributed to exchange it for another.

As we do so, we are beneficiaries of the partnership that we have with the People's Association, the CCs, but also the Agency of Integrated Care and the Silver Generation Office that has helped us then directly distribute tokens – I think more than 10,000 tokens have been directly distributed to seniors who have not been able to come down to the Community Centres. We will leverage on those types of processes and those types of partnerships to make sure this capability then continues to be available for Singaporeans in the future.

Cinema.

Yes. So, we will wait until after token distribution is completed before making it compulsory. We will make it available, but we will also have other modalities of SafeEntry check-in until distribution is completed.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Thank you very much, Speaker. The hon Member, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about what would happen in the event that the tokens have their batteries dead, for example. I would like to ask, what about if the tokens are stolen? Is there a clear reporting process because ultimately this is tied to the individuals; I see number and I just like to understand what is the process for residents in the event that their tokens are stolen.

I thank Ms Nadia for the question. Simply, there is a hotline and a helpline for the TraceTogether programme as a whole, there is an email address, there is a phone number and residents can contact that to let us know.

If the TraceTogether token is stolen, nobody will have access to your NRIC. The NRIC is not stored on the token itself. The token has a unique identifier and any link to the NRIC is held securely in the service of the databases at the point of registration.

And so, the person who has taken it from you will have no access to the personal data that is inside. So, the key issue then, is to notify us and we can re-issue and re-enrol the resident into the TraceTogether programme.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I have two supplementary questions. Can MOE consider distributing the TraceTogether tokens to students in their schools before the end of the school term, so that parents do not need to queue at CCs to collect them? This is a much more efficient way of distributing the tokens to students because the token is effectively mandatory for students as they are not allowed to use their phones during the school hours. And therefore, they cannot use the TraceTogether app. However, most parents of school-going children have smartphones so they can use that the TraceTogether app and they do not need to collect the tokens.

Secondly, many people seem to be rushing to collect the tokens, even though the app performs the same function. Given that 82% of people in Singapore use smartphones, the queues at the CCS can be greatly eased, if more public education can be conducted on this. The Government also needs to address the concerns that the app drains the phone batteries because this seems to be impacting the take-up rate. So, these two measures taken together can make the token collection faster and safer for those who actually need it and it can also help us to reach the 70% of TraceTogether penetration that is needed to enter into Phase Three.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Giam for his questions. On the issue of the distribution of tokens in the schools, we will work with MOE and see what is feasible or necessary. I would point out that in the collection at the CCs, parents or family members are already collecting for their children – so that process is happening.

There are schools from my time at MOE that do allow smartphones to be carried by the children in the schools as long as they use them responsibly. So, I think there is no one-size-fits-all. We may have to look at the best possible options. I think our focus at the moment is making sure that we have an equitable distribution plan across Singapore, to address the concerns such as articulated by Mr Lim, that we have to do so in order to then allow the implementation of these TraceTogether-only SafeEntry areas to deal with high risk activities as part of that progress.

I agree with him that further public education is needed and so we have to make sure that we reduce misinformation or disinformation about what the TraceTogether app is and does and what the programme is for. Indeed, there have been issues with battery drainage, partly because we are unable to standardise the smartphone or the operating system of the user, so we will have to engineer this process for a wide variety of phones that are out there. So, the team is continually iterating and improving the app and as a result, we have seen a significant improvement in performance since the app was first launched some time ago. For those residents who have had some difficulty, please keep your app updated to the latest version and hopefully you will see an improvement in battery performance.

But public education is key and we encourage Mr Giam and Members of this House to join us in explaining to Singaporeans the benefits of joining the TraceTogether programme.

5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, what is the annual number of neighbour-dispute cases received by HDB; and (b) whether there has been an increase in such dispute cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic and telecommuting work arrangements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not track the number of disputes between neighbours in HDB flats.

From 2015 to 2019, HDB received an average of about 3,400 reports or feedback on social disamenities per year.

In 2020, about 600 cases of such feedback were received per month from January to March 2020. This increased to about 2,100 cases of feedback per month from April to July 2020 as more people worked or studied from home due to the circuit breaker measures.

From August 2020 onwards, likely due to the return of children to school and more employees to workplaces, the number of feedback per month has fallen to about 1,500.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. From the information that Senior Minister of State has just shared, I think it is obvious that the prolonged telecommuting work arrangements have resulted in increased tensions among neighbours. Those who are used to leaving home to go to the workplace during most part of the day are unfamiliar and unaccustomed to the usual activities and noise generated during the day in our HDB estates. There is therefore a need, to look at fostering better relationships among neighbours today, more so than before.

First, I would like to ask if HDB is considering any plans or programmes to help ease tensions and foster better understanding among neighbours. Second, I would like to ask what is the percentage of neighbour dispute cases received by the HDB that had to be escalated to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal or CDRT. How many of such cases managed to get resolved when escalated to the CDRT and what are the residents' options if the dispute is not able to be resolved at the tribunal?

I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his supplementary questions. I should reiterate that the figures that I have cited relate to the cases or feedback with regard to social disamenities. So, it is not specifically neighbour disputes. But it is the closest proxy we have. So, yes, it is a reasonable inference that the changes in the way in which we live and work would have a link to the number of such feedback or such cases.

In terms of the programmes that HDB has in place, HDB does not do it alone because anything that has to do with neighbour disputes involves people and it is also to do with expectations that neighbours have of each other. So, it is something that HDB would work on together with partners. To give an example, HDB has been working with the Singapore Kindness Movement on a "Then How?" series of advisories to HDB residents on how we can all adapt to the new normal with more people working from home or studying at home.

At the same time, HDB has also been doing more to advise households that are undertaking renovations to be more considerate. More advice has been given to flat owners and their contractors, for instance, that they should keep their neighbours informed whenever noisy works are being planned, so that their neighbours can make alternative plans if needed. For those residents who are not able to make alternative arrangements to circumvent this renovation period, HDB will also recommend alternative spaces where these residents can work, such as work spaces at nearby CCs.

Mr Melvin Yong also asked about the percentage of cases that progress to mediation and CDRT. For the reasons that I have mentioned, I have to highlight that it is not an exact tracking of neighbour dispute cases. My understanding is that we are not able to share what are the cases at CDRT that relate specifically to neighbour disputes. But we understand from the State Courts that from 2015 to 2019, there were 380 applications to the CDRT and, of these applications, about two-thirds were resolved amicably.

Thank you, Sir. Could I just ask the Senior Minister of State, out of the feedback that were received, what percentage was actually related to second-hand smoke in people's home? Secondly, could HDB help in mediating some of these cases between neighbours when it comes to second-hand smoke and not just pass it on to NEA?

I thank Mr Louis Ng for his supplementary question. What I can share is that in terms of the feedback that has been received over 2017 to 2019, we have seen an increase in the number of complaints to do with smoking. We are not able to break it down into whether it occurred in the common areas or in other places. But in terms of the feedback, we had 216 instances of feedback about smoking in HDB areas in 2017, about 370 cases in 2018 and about 710 cases in 2019. For the first nine months of 2020, from January to September we had about 1,290 such instances.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that information. Can I request the Senior Minister of State to share what are the issues that come under the social disamenity criteria that was just mentioned because she did say that she does not have specific numbers of neighbourhood disputes, but that they generally come under this category of social disamenity? So, what are the other issues under this category that HDB tracks? And if the Senior Minister of State does not have an answer to that, what would be some of those instances which qualify as a social disamenity?

My second supplementary question is, in view of the fact that neighbour disputes do come up every now and then in the public housing setting, would HDB actually track this issue going forward so that we can understand what mechanisms can be introduced, such as the CDRT or amendments to the CDRT format, to lower this prospect of disputes and also to measure the success of measures like the cooperation with the Kindness Movement, for example, the "Then How?" series that the Senior Minister of State also spoke about?

I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. In terms of what categories are under social disamenities that would include issues apart from cigarette smoke which Mr Louis Ng mentioned, they would include issues to do with noise, foul smells, for instance. And the reason why they are a bit different than neighbourly disputes is that sometimes complaints are raised but the complainant may not be able to identify which unit originated these issues and, therefore, it would not quite be a case where we can identify specific neighbours and it may not be then a neighbour dispute case per se. That is the difference between social disamenities and neighbour disputes. Going forward, we do have intention to track neighbour disputes more closely because we do recognise that we now have developed an ecology of different methods in which to promote harmonious living and to also strengthen our community norms. This would include not just what our HDB branches can do on the ground but also in consultation and partnership with our grassroots volunteers with other organisations, like the Kindness Movement and also in concert with resolution mechanisms, such as CMC and CDRT.

6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth when will a timeline on the review of the Community Dispute Management Framework be made available.

MCCY leads an inter-agency committee that regularly reviews the Community Dispute Management Framework or CDMF that Mr Yip has referred to, to update and improve measures, such as the referral protocol amongst frontline agencies, mediation and, of course, also legislative recourse.

Our guiding principles continue to be to strengthen neighbourliness to minimise disputes upstream as far as possible; encourage mediation between neighbours to mend relations as far as possible; and, finally, as a measure of last resort, legal recourse for cases which may be intransigent.

Mr Yip and other Members are welcome to share their views and feedback with us and the inter-agency committee on how this framework can be strengthened.

Mr Yip.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. It was reported in the media in April that the CDMF will be reviewed, given the media report of Mr Daniel See, whose neighbour has been harassing him for many, many years and the neighbour has breached three Court orders. If the Ministry cannot share the timelines for the review, can the Minister share some of the efforts of how to make the framework more effective in solving some of these issues?

It is not that there is no timeframe that is available. As I have said, this framework is regularly reviewed. And in fact, these are steps that can be taken outside of legislative changes. They can be improved operationally. And, occasionally, when we receive feedback on how this can be done better, we try it out and, if it can be enhanced, then it is instituted immediately.

Some examples of what has been done in recent times, as I have mentioned at the outset, we try as far as possible to bring the process upstream. So, the Community Mediation Centre, or CMC, has been working with frontline officers. And that includes officers from the Singapore Police Force, HDB, Town Councils, NEA, BCA and MSO as well. The CMC works to equip these officers with mediation skills so that they, who encounter the neighbours and the disagreements first-hand, will be able to have some skills to try to resolve that as a measure of first resort.

More than 1,500 Grassroots Leaders have been trained in the past five years on basic mediation as well. Again, on the premise that these are persons who are on the ground, they deal with neighbours, they interact with neighbours on a daily basis and they will be the first responders to any issue that might arise.

We have also enhanced the referral protocols in the context of when a case can be escalated to CMC so that CMC, with its expertise, can intervene upfront and earlier. I keep mentioning intervening upstream and earlier because, very often, the earlier an intervention is made between the parties, the more likely it is that it will result in a successful mediation.

So, these are some steps that we take, together with CMC. I would add also – I forgot to mention this earlier – that CMC also, on occasions, visits residents who fail to respond to a mediation invitation. Members will know that mediation is voluntary. So, you sometimes invite two disagreeable neighbours to a mediation but one side does not want to respond. On occasions when CMC asseses that this case is suitable for mediation and one side has failed to respond, CMC officers and mediators also visit the resident concerned to try to persuade that person to come for mediation.

So, these are the various steps. Some of these steps have been enhanced and taken on board because of feedback given by our grassroots leaders, Members in this House, and we will continue to do so.

Sir, some of the feedback that I have received is that they do not want to travel all the way to CMC for the mediation. So, I am just wondering whether we can consider doing the mediation maybe at the CC or the RC so that it is nearer to where the complainant and the neighbour is. That way, it might increase the amount of participation in terms of mediation.

Thank you, Mr Ng. I thought you were going to ask me about second-hand smoke.

I thought so, too!

But, yes, indeed. I have mentioned earlier that 1,500 grassroots leaders have been trained as mediators. We will grow that pool. The idea really is to decentralise the venue of mediation as far as possible and find a location that is suitable for both parties. We will continue to work on that. If Mr Louis Ng has got any other suggestions on how other facilities within the neighbourhood can be used, we will welcome that as well.

7 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower what measures the Ministry has taken in ensuring emotional and mental health wellness in workplaces.

Mr Speaker, MOM has been working closely with the social and health agencies, tripartite partners and other stakeholders to provide greater support for mental wellness at the workplace.

We released an advisory on supporting mental well-being of workers under COVID-19 work arrangements in April this year. We will be releasing a Tripartite Advisory on Workers’ Mental Well-being later this year. The Tripartite Advisory will provide practical guidance to employers on good workplace practices to promote workers’ mental well-being.

There are existing programmes and resources that employers can tap on to help them implement mental wellness programmes at the workplace. For instance, HPB provides Management Training workshops to equip managers and HR professionals with knowledge and skills to be supportive leaders at the workplace. Companies can also tap on HPB's Workplace Outreach Wellness or WOW Package to co-fund and implement health promotion programmes, such as mental wellness workshops for their staff. To date, about 37,000 working adults have benefited from HPB's mental wellness programmes. There is also the iWorkHealth online self-assessment tool developed by MOM, IMH, HPB, Workplace Safety and Health Council and CGH to help companies identify common workplace stressors. The tool is currently piloted by a group of companies and will be fully rolled out next year, that is, 2021.

There are also many community resources in place to support individual workers who need emotional and psychological help. Various agencies, such as NCSS, the Agency for Integrated Care or AIC, and MSF work with social service agencies to provide services, such as counselling and mental health resources. For example, NCSS funds the Singapore Anglican Community Services to provide training and advisory support to employers and co-workers in creating an inclusive and supportive work environment.

NCSS also organises a multi-year public education campaign called Beyond the Label to address stigma faced by persons living with mental health conditions in Singapore. This year's campaign encourages working adults who are affected by mental health distress to seek mental health support early.

We are also encouraged to note that companies have stepped forward to take action in promoting workplace mental health. For instance, the WorkWell Leaders network organises regular meetings among corporate leaders to discuss ways to improve workplace mental health. NCSS also has a Peer Support Specialist Programme that trains individuals who have recovered from mental health issues as Peer Support Specialists to support others in their recovery.

MOM will continue to work with our partners to educate and gain the support of employers to further promote workers' mental well-being at the workplace.

Dr Wan Rizal.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I am certainly heartened by the measures and programmes that are available for mental health at the workplaces. So, my question will be, will these progammes and measures be made mandatory across all workplaces. And my second is, if these programmes are in place, will MOM conduct regular studies on the efficacy of the programmes so that we can better understand and use these programmes to help our workers?

I thank the Member for his questions. I think it relates to two parts. First, whether these programmes will be made mandatory. We are promoting and taking a very promotional approach to mental health awareness amongst employers. We are taking good steps, especially with the new advisory that we are putting out later this year to help employers understand some of the best practices out there, to put out guidelines that are agreeable between both the employers as well as the unions and the workers or the tripartite movement, putting together some of these learnings that we have had over the past few years and what works within a workplace.

On whether to make it mandatory, I think the challenge would be that every workplace is different. There are different work stressors at different workplaces too. And that is one of the reasons why we are rolling out the iWorkHealth pilot which is an assessment tool that MOM has developed with various partners to help companies understand the work stressors, for example, so that they can better understand how they can help workers cope with mental health issues and what are some of these stress points that cause mental issues at work.

But overall, if you look at the framework today, the Workplace Safety and Health Act already requires employers to take reasonably practical measures to uphold employees' health, including their mental health. Under the Act alone, there are certain obligation when employers will take care of their workers. And therefore, to some extent, there is safeguards in place to ensure that employers take this quite seriously.

On the Member's second point, whether we will measure this, certainly, every programme has got its objectives, targets, goals and KPIs and the various agencies, I am sure, will track the efficacy of each individual programme. But for us to track every single mental health issue at the workplace, this would be quite challenging, for example, trying to track MCs, how do you do that for individual workplaces? The second challenge would be this: when you deal with mental health, the root cause may not necessarily be from the workplace too. You do need to ascertain that the root causes are at work and whether we can deal with it better at work, for example.

But there are also cases, for example, where the root causes may be stressors at work and carried into work. This is where some of the recommendations from the upcoming guidelines could help such as providing counselling, access to counsellors, or additional measures where companies can make counselling accessible to employees or make the workplace less stressful or adapting to their challenges.

These are some of the measures that we can take at the workplace. This is an evolving area in which I think many of us, whether it is Government, whether it is the employers, are closely monitoring, given the fact that we do have to better understand the workplace stressors that our employees face, and especially today, under COVID-19 conditions.

8 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to include mental health services in the polyclinics to be open to walk-ins, rather than through referrals or on an appointment basis, to reduce treatment delay of mental healthcare in the community.

Mr Speaker, strengthening mental health services in primary care has been one of the key focus areas under the Community Mental Health Masterplan. This is to ensure that persons with mental health conditions can access care closer to home and in a less stigmatising environment.

Over the years, we have worked with the polyclinic clusters to set up mental health services in polyclinics and gradually build up the capabilities of our primary care doctors to manage persons with mild to moderate mental health conditions. Persons with mental health concerns can walk in to polyclinics and they will be attended to by polyclinics doctors who will conduct preliminary assessment and provide appropriate management, including making a referral to the mental health services, where necessary.

Other than seeking help at the polyclinic, persons with mental health conditions can also seek care for mental health at nearby General Practitioner or GP clinics. Under the Mental Health General Practitioner Partnership Programme or MHGPP, we have trained over 220 GPs to identify, diagnose and manage persons with mental health issues in the community. These GPs are further supported by community intervention teams which provide allied-health services, such as needs assessment, psycho-social therapeutic intervention, counselling and psycho-education for persons with mental health conditions. Community Health Assist Scheme or CHAS subsidies are available for persons seeking mental healthcare with our MHGPP partners, who are also CHAS GP clinics.

In addition, persons with mental health conditions can also tap on other avenues of support available in the community, such as the community outreach teams, which provide basic emotional and psycho-social support and service linkage for persons with mental health issues. To date, we have a network of 43 community outreach teams across Singapore.

MOH will continue to work with polyclinics, GPs and community mental health partners to build up our mental health services in the community, so that holistic and timely support is provided for persons with mental health conditions.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. With regards to the GP clinics that are already participating, there are really a lot more that are not. Is there a reason why some of these GP clinics are not keen to participate in such a partnership programme? Would the Ministry consider handing out incentives to encourage participation or even make such programmes mandatory for all GP clinics?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I think we have to take the view that GPs and their clinics have to do the broad base of primary care in terms of access. And then, when it comes to certain domains, people have to leverage on the strengths and skills sets that are available in that team. And so, we have GPs that go on to take special trainings so that they can provide mental healthcare services. Some will focus on dermatology; some will focus on children care services or maternal care services.

I think the key issue is to ensure that there is access for anybody who needs care for mental health condition. And they have a choice, in terms of going to the polyclinic or going to a private GP and that they then have a network of support services from the community care teams, the allied healthcare teams and the referral services in the hospitals, and that these can be accessed either by the polyclinic route or by the private GP. That is the intent to which we work towards.

I think to insist that this be compulsory across every single clinic perhaps is not in the right spirit of how care should be delivered. You make sure that the broad base of access is there and for certain specialised domains, you improve understanding, you improve access and the teams should then make referral to GPs, polyclinics and centres where they have the full suite of services to be able to care for people with these conditions.

9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs since the decriminalisation of suicide in 2019 (a) how many cases of suicide have been recorded; (b) in how many cases of attempted suicide have the Police and SCDF intervened to help such persons as part of the safeguards put in place upon the abolishment of the criminal offence of attempting suicide; and (c) how has the decriminalisation of attempted suicide improved the situation for persons tempted to commit suicide.

Mr Speaker, in 2019, there were 400 cases of death by suicide. From January to September 2019, there were 304 deaths by suicide.

Preliminarily, from January to September 2020, this year, there were 166 cases of death by suicide. I have to qualify that these are preliminary figures. They may change depending on the outcomes from proceedings such as the Coroner's inquiries to determine the circumstances leading to death.

Attempted suicide was decriminalised via the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019. The amendments came into effect on 1 January 2020. From January to September this year, Police were called to assist in about 1,800 cases involving persons with suicidal ideation or persons who may have attempted suicide.

Before attempted suicide was decriminalised, from 2017 to 2019, Police received about 1,200 reports of attempted suicide per year. For these cases of attempted suicide, the physical and fault elements of the offences under section 309 of the Penal Code must be made out. That means they have to demonstrate intent as well as actually carry out an act to take his own life. This figure is not comparable with the post-decriminalisation figure which covers cases where individuals have suicidal ideation, in addition to persons who have actually taken the further step of attempting suicide.

The criminal justice system is not the best way to deal with persons who attempted suicide. Such persons are often under severe distress. The decriminalisation of attempted suicide reduces stigma and encourages persons who are suicidal to seek help early. The reasons for suicide are multi-faceted and complex. Hence, the Government has been continuing our efforts to prevent suicides.

We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust our approaches to better assist suicidal persons.

10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to look into the carrying capacity of our green and blue spaces and how trash can be better managed on our Southern Islands given that more Singaporeans have been visiting these nature parks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, NParks actively manages the capacity of our parks and nature reserves. For example, NParks carries out real time crowd monitoring and control, and has closed park areas temporarily when needed, in view of increased visitorship and safe distancing requirements during the COVID-19 period. Visitors can check the visitorship levels via NParks' Safe Distance@Parks portal to avoid potential crowds, before heading to the parks.

NParks is very mindful of the potential impact that increased visitorship may have on our biodiversity. In this regard, NParks deploys officers to remind visitors not to venture off the designated trails. In addition, there are signs around our nature areas and parks to educate visitors on park etiquette and regulations.

NParks will continue to expand the network of parks, including nature parks, so that more Singaporeans can enjoy nature-based recreation. This will help spread out the demand for such recreational experiences, and alleviate the pressure on core biodiversity areas, including our nature reserves.

To manage the trash generated by visitors at our Southern Islands specifically, SLA has installed trash bins and signs to encourage visitors to bring their trash with them when they leave. Besides clearing the flotsam and litter daily, SLA and NParks also work together with the community on initiatives such as beach clean-ups at the islands.

We would like to remind all park users to be socially responsible, and help keep our parks and natural spaces clean so that we can all continue to enjoy these public spaces together.

Order. End of Question Time. Leader.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 11, 13-22, 24-25, 27 and 29-35 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 12, 23, 26 and 28 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders:

the Minister for Home Affairs and Law may, in his statement on the Parti Liyani case, give Parliament a full account of the conduct of the police officers and prosecutors involved in that case, and clarifications may be sought and given on the account given by the Minister; and

Members may refer to and discuss the account given by the Minister when the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim is under consideration by Parliament.”

Sir, the Parti Liyani case has generated significant public interest.

Numerous questions were filed by Members after the High Court gave its judgment, including questions in relation to the Police investigations and/or the prosecution of the case by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and what would be done to address the issues that were identified in the High Court’s judgment.

Ms Lim has also filed a motion relating to the justice system and I understand from public statements made by the Workers’ Party that this will also touch on the Parti Liyani matter.

Given the significant public interest in these issues, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law will shortly be delivering a Ministerial Statement.

The Minister intends that Members should be able to seek clarifications on his Statement.

There is also the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim. Given the topic of Ms Lim’s Motion, it is also possible that in the debate on the Motion, Members may refer to matters in the Ministerial Statement.

The speech, discussion and clarifications are likely to go into matters that may also be relevant to existing proceedings.

Standing Order 50(2) provides that “[r]eference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice”, that is to say, matters which are pending before the Courts.

In order to allow the Minister to give a full account of the matter to Parliament and so that Members will not be restricted in their ability to seek clarifications or to discuss or debate the case, which has raised issues of significant public interest, it is necessary to lift Standing Order 50(2).

It is for this reason that I am moving this Motion to lift the application of Standing Order 50(2), so that the issues may be fully ventilated in this House today.

In so doing, I wish to sound a cautionary note. The sub judice rule is one that we normally adhere to, for good reason. However, here, we will be discussing the issues because there is a clear public interest for the questions raised about our criminal justice system to be addressed sooner, rather than later. It is not clear when the existing proceedings will conclude, and it is not satisfactory to defer the Parliamentary discussion of the case for months or indefinitely.

This should not be regarded as a general precedent, but something that is necessary for the present circumstances.

I would also urge Members to exercise judgement in their speeches and clarifications, and to be prepared to substantiate any factual point they are making. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders: (proc text)]

[(proc text) (a) the Minister for Home Affairs and Law may, in his statement on the Parti Liyani case, give Parliament a full account of the conduct of the police officers and prosecutors involved in that case, and clarifications may be sought and given on the account given by the Minister; and (proc text)]

[(proc text) (b) Members may refer to and discuss the account given by the Minister when the motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim is under consideration by Parliament". (proc text)]

Minister for Home Affairs and Law Mr Shanmugam.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this.

Sir, in March 2019, Ms Parti Liyani – and I will refer to her as Ms Liyani – was convicted in the State Courts on four theft-related charges. She was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment. She appealed to the High Court against her conviction and sentence, and on 4 September 2020, she was acquitted on all the charges by the High Court.

A number of questions have been raised following her acquittal. They centre around: how did the Police and Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC handle the case? How should the State Court Judgment be assessed, given the High Court’s views?

These are important questions. There has been much attention on this case. Members have filed questions. Many news reports and commentaries on this, since September.

There has been interest because underlying these questions, which are specific to the case, there is a broader, more fundamental question:

Did a powerful man, Mr Liew Mun Leong, and I will refer to him as LML, work the system to his advantage?

Did the Police and AGC unfairly prosecute Ms Liyani, because LML was the complainant?

Did Ms Liyani get a fair trial in the State Courts?

Do we have one law for the wealthy, socially connected, and another for the rest of society?

This fundamental issue is at the heart of many of the questions that have been raised. And that question is of central importance to us. The credibility of our system, the foundation of our society depends on us ensuring that there is Rule of Law and the Law applies equally to all.

If that principle is compromised, then Singapore is compromised. It is a basic duty of the Government to ensure that that principle is upheld and I take it very seriously. And so it is good that we deal with this, with the questions that have been asked.

I will start first with the case: the investigations, the conduct of trial and the specific questions which have arisen, relating to the case – it will be Part 1 of my Statement. I will then move on to Part 2 which will deal with the fundamental questions as I have put them. And in Part 3, I will deal with the questions that Members of Parliament have raised.

May I suggest two things, Sir. It is not going to be a short speech. And at the end of Part 1, it may be appropriate to take a break and then come back for Parts 2 and 3.

Yes.

At the end of Part 1, but certainly by end of Part 3, we will probably know what is happening in the US. [Laughter.]

Let me start with the facts. The facts are as follows.

Ms Liyani was an Indonesian domestic worker working in Singapore since 1997. According to her, LML was her third employer. But MOM records show that LML was in fact her seventh employer. She worked for LML from March 2007 until 28 October 2016. Her employment was terminated on that day. In Court, the following was said – and I am setting out what was said, not commenting whether it is true or false.

Over the years, the family’s possessions went missing. LML gave examples such as a bag he bought from Tokyo, his jogging shoes, a number of Longchamp bags. He suspected Ms Liyani of stealing but did not take action as he could not be sure. A specially designed power bank from France, that was gifted to LML, “disappeared” a few days after he had received it.

Subsequent investigations showed that this may have happened in May 2016. By then, the only occupants in the house were LML, his wife Ng Lai Peng – whom I will refer to as NLP – and Ms Liyani. Though some others may have had access to the house, LML then decided to terminate Ms Liyani’s employment.

In this context – and I should add and I will come back to this later – subsequent investigations also showed that earlier, in late 2015, the Liews were looking to replace Ms Liyani because they thought she was stealing things. But no firm decision was taken. In September 2016, they decided to terminate her employment and told the maid agency.

Once a replacement helper was available, they decided to let Ms Liyani go. LML was travelling, he told his wife to arrange for people to be around and serve the notice of termination.

On 28 October 2016, at about 11 am, Karl Liew – I will refer to him as Karl – LML's son, went to LML’s residence at 49 CL with employment agents and this was at LML’s request. Karl told Ms Liyani they were sending her back. No reasons were initially given. Ms Liyani asked for reasons.

Karl told her that “there are missing items in the house and the only people staying in the house were my father, my mother and you”. She was asked to pack her belongings and given two months’ salary as compensation, in addition to that month’s salary.

Ms Liyani asked for boxes to pack her things. These were provided to her. She packed them with some assistance from the Liews’ other employees. She sealed one box with tape and wrote her address on it. The other two boxes were sealed by two other employees of LML. Karl agreed to pay for the boxes to be sent back to Indonesia.

Ms Liyani left the house with the employment agent and returned to Indonesia that night. The replacement helper commenced her employment at LML’s house on the same day, 28 October 2016. When he got home, Karl told his wife Heather Lim – and I will refer to her as Heather – about what had happened. Heather told him that the boxes should not be sent back without knowing what was inside them.

On 29 October 2016, in the afternoon, NLP, Karl and Heather opened the boxes. They said they found items which belonged to them which they had not seen for years. They spent about two hours going through the items. They also took a 21-second video. LML returned to Singapore some time on 29 October 2016. He spent a short time going through the contents of the boxes.

On 30 October 2016 at 3.54 pm, LML lodged a Police report at Tanglin Police Station.

On 4 November 2016, a Police Gazette was issued. I will come back to this later and deal with the Police Gazette or PG.

On 2 December 2016 at about 9 pm, Ms Liyani returned to Singapore. She was arrested at the airport based on the PG. Ms Liyani said in her statement to the Police, that she came back to visit a friend and go sightseeing thereafter, and she planned to return to Indonesia before going to Hong Kong to work. Later in Court, she said that she, in fact, returned to Singapore to look for her agent and seek employment. When she was arrested, some items were found on her. These are listed in Annex 1, Table A to my Statement. [Please refer to Annex 1.]

The Liews said these were also stolen items. These items were seized and subsequently included in the charges against her.

I will now deal with how the investigations were conducted by the Police, how AGC assessed the case and proceeded.

LML had lodged a Police report, as I said earlier, on 30 October. The Police report stated that over the years, the family's belongings had gone missing. They suspected Ms Liyani. They terminated her employment on 28 October and they found some of the items packed in her boxes.

LML's statement was then taken. Initial investigations showed that Ms Liyani had left Singapore on 28 October itself. LML had set out in his Police statement the items which he said had been stolen. The items were, according to LML, found amongst Ms Liyani's belongings in the boxes.

Theft is an arrestable offence. The Police needed to trace Ms Liyani to investigate further. Where there is reason to suspect that an arrestable offence has been committed, the Police will try to find the alleged offender and, if appropriate, arrest the person. If the person is at a known address, the Police can go and interview the person. If there is no known address or if the person is believed to have gone overseas, then a PG will be issued. And so, a PG was issued in this case. Ms Liyani was believed to have gone overseas.

On 2 December, at about 9 pm, as I said earlier, she was arrested at the airport. On 3 December, the Police went to the Liews' houses. They first went to Karl's house. One of the three boxes had been moved there. Karl told the Police the items in the box were his. The Police were told that the box containing Karl's items had been brought back to his home.

The box contained an assortment of items – clothing, bedding, kitchen ware, utensils. Items were taken out, laid out, photographed. These photos were used in recording the various statements taken subsequently. The physical items were not seized.

The Police then visited LML's house. The Police were told that the two boxes had remained there. NLP had recovered some items from the boxes – jewellery, accessories, watches, Gucci sunglasses. The Police seized 51 items. Twenty-one items eventually formed the third charge. They were said to belong to LML's daughter, Ms May Liew, and I will refer to her as May. These items are set out in Annex 2. [Please refer to Annex 2.]

The Police did not seize all the items. They were seen as daily use items. The Liews claimed these items. Photographs were taken in lieu of seizure. Items found in those boxes are set out in Annex 1, Table B.

The Police then continued their investigations. They took statements from Ms Liyani, the Liews and other witnesses. The matter was then referred to AGC.

I will now set out how AGC proceeded in coming to the charging decision.

When AGC receives a file from a law enforcement agency, the prosecutors will assess whether a charge is appropriate and what action, if any, should be taken. The assessment and decision are usually cleared by a Director. Files are typically cleared at the Director level, not usually brought up to a higher management – by which I mean the Deputy Chief Prosecutor, the Chief Prosecutor, the Deputy Attorney-General or Attorney-General, or AG – unless they involve more serious or sensitive crimes or where AG's consent to prosecute is expressly required.

Ms Liyani's case was no different. It went through the same routine and the charging decision was cleared at the Director level. The events leading up to the charging decision were as follows.

On 5 June 2017, the Police sent the file to AGC with their investigation findings and recommendations. Such theft files are routine matters handled by AGC. Over the last three years, AGC has dealt with an average about 3,000 reports every year for theft in dwelling and theft as servant offences.

The file was reviewed by two Deputy Public Prosecutors or DPPs. They asked the Police to investigate a number of further points. The police did that and returned the file to AGC with further findings. The DPPs then reviewed the file. They sought further clarifications, and the file was then sent back to the Police for further investigations. The Police conducted further investigations. Then, they sent the file back to AGC. DPPs reviewed the evidence again.

This back and forth between the Police and AGC is again normal. In many cases, DPPs will look at the material and ask further questions. Because of the system in AGC, depending on which officer is on duty, it would be different DPPs who look at the same file and that was what happened here as well.

From the Police and AGC's perspective, this was handled as a routine theft case. There was no attempt by anyone to influence them. A Police report was filed and the matter was dealt with as such reports are usually dealt with. I will come back to this.

AGC decided to charge Ms Liyani for two main reasons: there was sufficient evidence which showed that theft offences were likely to have been committed; and second, it was in the public interest to prosecute. Let me explain this.

The evidence before AGC at that time was as follows: the Liews had identified all the items in the charges as items belonging to them and gave some detail. In contrast, based on what AGC saw, Ms Liyani gave answers which raised many questions. I will highlight some of these.

Ms Liyani claimed that she had found some jewellery in May's trash. May stated that she would never throw jewellery away. She would give unwanted jewellery to the Salvation Army or friends. AGC's assessment was that the evidence of May was more believable.

Ms Liyani also claimed that she had found items such as a Prada bag, two Apple iPhones, a pair of Gucci sunglasses in the trash. AGC did not find this to be credible. The list of items that Ms Liyani said she found in the trash are in Annex 3 and those are the photographs that have been circulated to Members. [Please refer to Annex 3.]

Ms Liyani also expressly admitted to taking some items – 10 to 15 items of clothing. Let me explain this.

In her first statement dated 3 December 2016, Ms Liyani was asked how she came into possession of male clothing. She said the clothing belonged to her employer. She said she took the clothing because the clothes were small. She assumed the employer's son Karl would not want the clothes. She did not ask Karl whether she could take the clothes. She admitted to taking the pieces of male clothing in early 2015.

In her second statement dated 4 December 2016, Ms Liyani said, "I only took about 10 to 15 pieces of men's clothing belonging to my employer's husband. I admit that I took it without informing my employer or her husband". And she also said, "I only admit to taking the 10 to 15 men's clothing belonging to my employer's husband without consent" and "I did not steal any other items."

Her statement that she did not steal any other items is also very significant. Prima facie on the statements, this would appear to be theft. AGC assessed the case based on this and other material.

I should add that under cross-examination in Court, Ms Liyani said she was only given permission to take these items if Karl did not want them, but she did not ask Karl, meaning she just took the items.

Ms Liyani also gave contradictory accounts to the Police on several other items. These inconsistencies are set out in Annex 4. [Please refer to Annex 4.] I will highlight two instances of inconsistencies as illustrations.

One Vacheron Constantin watch and a Swatch watch – in her statement dated 4 December, Ms Liyani said these watches were gifts from a friend. However, in a later statement of 29 May 2017, she said she found these watches in May's trash.

A pair of Gucci sunglasses – in her statement dated 4 December 2016, she said this was a gift from LML's previous helper. In a later statement of May 2017, she said she found it in her room at LML's home when she first started working for LML.

I should add, later in Court, Ms Liyani was asked about these contradictions. She gave explanations. Her explanations are also set out in the table at Annex 4.

Putting together Ms Liyani's apparent inconsistencies, her answers on the jewellery and the other items, which she said she found in the trash – like the Prada bag, the two Apple iPhones, a pair of Gucci sunglasses – her other questionable answers, her admission to taking some male clothing without permission, AGC's view was that there was a case to prosecute.

At that stage, the Liews' position was that the items were theirs. AGC also took the view that there was a clear public interest in prosecuting Ms Liyani. Two reasons: one, it appeared that Ms Liyani had stolen many items, including some seemingly expensive items; and two, it appeared that she had been stealing for years and it was not an impulsive spur-of-the-moment decision.

So, the questions for Members in this House, in this case, is, on what I have set out – what material evidence did Police and AGC have? What does that show? Was there a basis for AGC's view that the case ought to be prosecuted? That is why I have set out this material in some detail, so that Members can assess for themselves the basis for the decisions that the Police and AGC came to.

I will now move on to the trial.

The trial was heard in the State Courts over 20 days, from 23 April 2018 to 17 January 2019. The DPPs who conducted the trial were different from the DPPs who had previously been involved in the charging process. Ms Liyani was represented by counsel assigned under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, or CLAS, for both the trial and the appeal. I will come back later to CLAS.

Let me now turn to the State Court's judgment. The trial judge found serious inconsistencies in Ms Liyani's evidence between what she said in Court and her previous statements. The State Court noted that Ms Liyani had various versions in relation to specific items. Ms Liyani said different things in her statement compared with what she said in evidence in chief in Court and then sometimes, changed her version under cross-examination. I have earlier referred to Annex 4, which sets out these inconsistencies and also her explanations for these inconsistencies.

The State Court found Ms Liyani's evidence on some items to be implausible. For example, the two old white iPhones – she said she picked up the two phones from a rubbish bag. These were iPhone 4 models, probably about six years old as of 2016. The State Court preferred the Liews' evidence that they would not discard old mobile phones as they were used as spare phones or as hard drives to keep photographs.

Jewellery – Ms Liyani said that most of the jewellery was picked from May's rubbish in 2011 or 2012 and she did not seek permission to take them. May identified the items as hers and provided circumstances of how and why she purchased them. The State Court preferred May's version as it was more detailed and she came across as honest and forthright.

Ms Liyani said that a purple Prada bag and Gucci sunglasses with red stains were found in a rubbish bag. The State Court accepted Heather's evidence that these items were never discarded. The trial judge said the modus operandi of Ms Liyani was to take a variety of items from different family members, thinking that this would go unnoticed.

On appeal, the High Court acquitted Ms Liyani on all charges. The High Court's decision was premised on two key findings.

First, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews had an improper motive for making allegations against Ms Liyani. Second, there had been a break in the chain of custody of the items, which were said to have been stolen. In addition, the High Court also expressed doubts about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, in particular, Karl. It also expressed doubts on the extent to which Ms Liyani's statements given to the Police should be used against her. I will deal with all four points.

I should say this – as a rule, we do not comment in detail on Court decisions. Sometimes, we deal with specific issues that can arise from decisions or comments; and when decisions raised broader questions, then, this House has discussed the relevant judgments, like the City Harvest case. In this case, the High Court's comments have given rise to the questions I have referred to earlier. These questions require us to go back and carefully analyse the judgment.

It is difficult to discuss the law enforcement and legal processes, here in Parliament, based on the High Court's comments without a proper understanding of the comments. We also cannot make an assessment of whether the comments require us to change any of our current processes without looking carefully at the relevant parts of the judgment.

So, I will therefore be looking at parts of the High Court judgment to give the Government's views on them, and based on that, I will set up what gaps there were in the investigations, conduct of the trial and also say what more could or should have been done.

But as we do this, let me make three points clear and reiterate what I have said earlier.

First, the High Court's decision is final, on the acquittal; there is no appeal.

Second, I am making no comment as to whether the High Court's decision can be relied upon, or whether the Judge’s comments can be relooked at in other proceedings, for example, in any proceedings that Ms Liyani or others are or may be involved. There are Rules of Evidence relating to these matters.

Third, in this case, we have had to deal with the questions raised, whether there were or are any systemic issues with our law enforcement processes, and for that purpose, we have to discuss the Judgment, the Government’s view and also look at some additional factual material, which we came to know of after the Judgment was delivered. It is, therefore, a narrow, specific purpose. This exercise is not one of reopening the Judgment, and I should emphasise that. We are going into detail only because it is necessary for the purposes I have explained.

So, let us start with, first, the motive point. The Judge said at paragraph 52 of the Judgment, and I quote, "the Police report was made just two days after Parti made explicit to two members of Liew’s family of her intention to lodge a complaint to the MOM about being required to work illegally at Karl’s residence at 39 CL and at Karl’s office"

There are two points here. First, did Ms Liyani steal? And second, what was the Liews’ motive in making the allegations?

If it is shown that there is a reasonable doubt that the Liews had an improper motive, then what they say about Ms Liyani and the theft of items could become questionable. In this case, the High Court came to a view on motive that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews filed the Police Report, to prevent Ms Liyani from filing a MOM complaint against them for having deployed her to work outside their house.

Motive appears to have been a key factor in the Judgment and we have looked carefully at what the High Court said at paragraph 52 of the Judgment, that Ms Liyani had made explicit to two members of LML’s family her intention to lodge a complaint to MOM about being required to work illegally at Karl’s residence at 39 CL and at Karl’s office.

The evidence is that as Ms Liyani was packing her things on 28 October 2016, she said she was going to complain to MOM. She did not say what she was going to complain to MOM about. The High Court did note this and said that Ms Liyani did not actually say that she was going to complain about having been made to work at Karl’s house or office. Thus, when the High Court said Ms Liyani had made explicit to two members of the Liew family she was going to complain about having been made to work outside LML’s house, the statement was an inference that the High Court has made based on the evidence and submissions before it.

Based on this, the High Court also said LML and Karl must have been concerned and, therefore, there is reasonable doubt as to whether they had a motive to make allegations and a police report against Ms Liyani. The Court, in fact, said this threat by Ms Liyani on 28 October 2016 to lodge a complaint with MOM was, I quote, "most critical".

Second, the Court then said the Liews filed the "urgent" Police report on 30 October 2016 to ensure that Ms Liyani’s return would be prevented, and so that Ms Liyani cannot file a complaint to MOM.

Third, the Court said that the termination of her employment was sudden, so that Ms Liyani would not have time to complain to MOM.

I will deal with all these three observations that the Court made because it is these observations on the Liews’ motive which have primarily led to questions in this case on whether there was any improper influence by LML on the agencies, which is the question centrally before us.

When Ms Liyani said on 28 October 2016 that she was going to complain to MOM, what was she referring to? Annex 5 sets out what Ms Liyani seems to have said and this is based on subsequent investigations. [Please refer to Annex 5.] The subsequent evidence is that she said, and I quote, "I want to complain because you gave me too short notice". She thus seemed to have actually said more than what was in evidence in Court. Annex 5 also sets out why this part of what she said was not in evidence in the State Courts and I will come back to this later.

How and why was this subsequent evidence obtained? After the High Court's decision was issued, there were internal reviews, as announced. AGC also directed the Police to conduct further investigations into whether any offences had been committed by the Liews. This information that I have set out, and other information, was obtained in the course of those investigations, which arose from the High Court's decision. So, I emphasise that, as a result of the High Court's comments, further investigations were conducted against the Liews. It was in the course of those investigations that this information came out.

As stated earlier, the evidence is that LML had been thinking of terminating Ms Liyani’s employment for some time, prior to October 2016, because he suspected Ms Liyani of stealing. He told NLP of this. The further investigations, conducted after the High Court's decision, show that NLP told the maid agency by end of 2015 that she wanted to get a new helper. She told the maid agency that she suspected Ms Liyani of stealing. She went to the agency a few times to review bio-data of possible replacement helpers, but NLP did not make a firm decision.

Sometime after LML received the power bank in May 2016, it disappeared. LML then decided to terminate Ms Liyani’s employment and told NLP. NLP visited the agency in September 2016 and chose a replacement helper. Ms Liyani was dismissed on 28 October 2016 because a new helper had become available on that day.

According to LML, he had agreed with NLP that Ms Liyani would only be dismissed once a replacement was found. Based on what the maid agent has said to the Police, the new helper arrived in Singapore on 25 October 2016. On 26 October 2016, after checking with the maid agent on the status of the new helper, the family decided that Ms Liyani would be dismissed on 28 October 2016.

On 28 October 2016, after Ms Liyani was told that her employment was terminated, Ms Liyani said "I want to complain because you gave me too short notice". One of the maid agents who was present then, confirms this. He says, after Ms Liyani was told that her employment was terminated, Ms Liyani "shouted that she wanted to complain to MOM about the short notice of termination". Ms Liyani did not say that she wanted to complain to MOM about anything else.

As can be seen, this is quite different from the inference that the High Court had made. But the High Court understandably and naturally went on the basis of the evidence and the submissions made to it. The High Court did not have the benefit of this additional evidence. And as I have said, our purpose is not to reopen the High Court’s findings.

Further investigations also revealed that on 28 October 2016, the maid agents offered twice to assist Ms Liyani with lodging an MOM complaint but Ms Liyani declined. First time was at 49 CL when Ms Liyani first said that she wanted to complain. And the second time was at the agent’s office before they left for the airport. Ms Liyani declined on both occasions.

Ms Liyani lodged her complaint about illegal deployment after she was charged in September and October 2017. As can be seen from Annex 5, the Prosecution did not obtain or put forward this evidence because the issue had not been raised by the Defence in its Case for Defence or at the pre-trial conference. These points were thus not inquired into.

Prosecution, in general, puts forward the evidence it needs for the charges and to deal with the points that the Defence says it is going to make or raise. When a new point gets raised during the trial, Prosecution will have to assess how to proceed. In this case, the matter was raised when witnesses were on the stand and in Submissions. The Prosecution did not see a need to deal with the issue by bringing in new evidence for the reasons set out in Annex 5. Annex 5 is a Note prepared by AGC. I asked them to give me a Note, setting out how this point on Motive was handled in Court and the position that AGC took.

I want to emphasise a few points. How a trial is handled, what evidence is led, is a matter for the lawyers involved to decide. I have myself been in such situations. When the other side raises a new point, do you deal with it by going back and checking if there is further evidence or do you treat it as irrelevant, or do you deal with it in Submissions? It really depends on the situation and the facts, the Counsel’s assessment.

So, we are not here discussing the specifics of how the trial was conducted, and whether how it was conducted was right or wrong. My task before this House is to set out what happened, what we have found out since the High Court's Judgment and, based on that, examine whether there are any systemic issues, and whether there was any influence-peddling.

I also emphasise Members must take this further evidence in its proper context. It is evidence untested in Court. But since this has come up during the further investigations as to whether the Liews committed an offence, I am duty bound to set this out in this House because it is in my possession. So, I cannot come here and go through the facts without telling you that we have this further information which only came about because the further investigations into the Liews’ conduct was directed by AGC.

I will now deal with the second point that the High Court made, that the Liews filed the Police report to try and prevent Ms Liyani from making an MOM complaint.

Making a Police Report will not prevent Ms Liyani from returning to Singapore. The High Court made the same point to Defence counsel during the hearing. Indeed, in this case, it did not stop her from returning to Singapore.

And making a Police Report will also not prevent Ms Liyani from filing a complaint with MOM if she was serious about doing so. She does not even have to be in Singapore to do that.

If an MOM complaint was a key concern, filing a Police Report and having Police investigations is possibly a sure way for such a complaint to be raised. Should Ms Liyani attempt to return, Police investigations would also require her to remain in Singapore, once again offering her a further opportunity to pursue an MOM complaint against the Liews.

The High Court has also said that LML’s reasons for filing the Police report were "curious". LML had stated that he was lodging the Police report "for record purposes as he was afraid that her boyfriends might cause a nuisance or break into [his] apartment".

Looking at it in this House, Ms Liyani had left and had asked for three boxes to be sent to her. The Liews had opened the boxes and were not going to send them to her. They said they found items belonging to them in the boxes. They also said that they were concerned that Ms Liyani's boyfriends in Singapore might try to retrieve the items.

In the circumstances, is it understandable that a Police Report is filed? Is it possible to think that Ms Liyani or persons acting on her behalf will ask what happened to the items and may accuse the Liews?

I put forward these points on filing the Police Report because for our purposes, in this context, the question is not whether the High Court is right or wrong but, rather, the question is how did the AGC and Police proceed? Is there anything so obviously wrong about the filing of the Police Report that should have been apparent to the Police and the AGC?

On the material before them, did the Police and AGC have good reason to proceed on the basis that this was a routine theft case? That is the central question; not whether the High Court was right, wrong; State Court, who says what. Did AGC and Police proceed in good faith, based on the material before them and what was before them?

So, I am putting these points across, so that Members can place themselves in the shoes of Police and AGC and think of these points. And it is for the same reason that I will go through some of the other points which I will come to, but I may not keep repeating these points about why I am going into detail. But as long as Members understand the purpose of much of what I have said, and will say, the detail that I am setting out is broadly to help understand what was the basis on which Police and AGC proceeded in this case – did they have good reason to proceed, what did they know before the trial – and we are looking at that to see whether, systemically, anything was wrong.

The third point that the High Court made relates to the termination of Ms Liyani's employment. The High Court said the termination of Ms Liyani's employment was sudden, since there was no evidence of items that had gone missing in the period around 28 October 2016 which necessitated the "immediate and sudden termination" of Ms Liyani's employment when LML was overseas. Thus, the High Court said this sudden termination was less likely to be because of items that went missing "over the years" and more likely to be due to fear of Ms Liyani's complaint to MOM.

I have set out the way this point came up and how this point had been dealt with in evidence at the trial and what subsequent investigations showed.

The investigations showed that the decision to terminate Ms Liyani's employment was not sudden. It was being considered from late 2015. The Liews decided upon a replacement helper in September 2016 for the reasons set out earlier. Ms Liyani's employment was terminated on 28 October 2016 because the replacement helper became available then. The Police did not go into this earlier. There was no reason for the Police to believe that the termination was for reasons other than the alleged theft.

I will now deal with a couple more points on the motive issue.

The High Court used different terminologies to describe the Liews' motive. It said "reason to believe", "reasonable doubt", "an improper motive", "the improper motive", it referred to "the existence of an improper motive". So, it is not clear, was there only a reasonable doubt that the Liews had an improper motive, or is the Court saying the Liews actually, in fact, had an improper motive. It cannot be both. Lawyers will know that.

I think it will be a fair assumption that the High Court intended to say that there was a reasonable doubt and not that in fact, it found, that there was an improper motive. It means that the High Court says there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews had an improper motive, and not that they in fact had an improper motive.

The High Court also rejected the allegation that the whole of the Liew family were acting in collusion, based on the improper motive.

This view on motive appears to have considerably influenced the High Court in assessing the witnesses' credibility as well. The High Court said this at various points in the judgment. So, that is the first reason why Ms Liyani was acquitted.

I will now come to the second major reason for the High Court acquitting Ms Liyani.

The High Court said that there was a break in the chain of custody of the items which were alleged to have been stolen by Ms Liyani. The items which were recovered from the boxes, are set out in Annex 1, Table B. The items which were recovered from Ms Liyani, upon her arrest, are set out in Annex 1, Table A. The break in the chain of custody applies to the items recovered from the boxes, and not the items seized from Ms Liyani.

When you refer to the items in the boxes – I have set out the facts earlier – the High Court found that there had been a break in the chain of the items from 29 October 2016 when they were found in the boxes by the Liews, to 3 December 2016 when the Police visited the scene. The Liews were also using the items in the boxes during this period. The High Court therefore said the case of theft is not proven because it cannot be proven that Ms Liyani took them. There could have been interference when the boxes were with the Liews.

These items can be classified into two categories: one, items which Ms Liyani admitted to packing in the boxes, or otherwise admitted to taking; and two, items which she did not specifically admit to packing into her boxes. Where Ms Liyani admitted to packing the items, or taking the items, then it really does not matter whether there was a chain of custody, or whether that chain of custody was broken, because she clearly intended to take these items. Where she admits to packing the items, or taking the items, then the only question is whether it belongs to the Liews or to Ms Liyani, or for some reason, she is entitled to keep the items.

We have identified the items which Ms Liyani does not admit to packing into her boxes, namely the two DVD players, some of the clothing said to belong to Karl, three bedsheets and one blanket said to belong to Karl. Looking at the facts, the High Court's view that there was a break in the chain of custody is understandable in respect of these items.

A fourth charge relates to items in Heather’s possession, comprised solely of items seized from Ms Liyani, including a Prada bag and a pair of Gucci sunglasses with red stains, when she came back from Jakarta. The break in chain of custody does not apply to these items. I have gone through the break in chain of custody in some detail because this was the second major reason the Judge gave. But more importantly, because it relates directly to what the Police did, or did not do.

For Members' understanding, it is useful to know which items are affected by the break in the chain, which items are not so affected, and that several items are not affected by the break in the chain. This is because there has been a misunderstanding amongst some, that all the items are affected by the break in the chain of custody.

We have set out at Annex 6 how the issue of chain of custody affected the various items in the charges. [Please refer to Annex 6.]

If we remove those items possibly affected by the break in chain of custody, there would still be four theft charges against Ms Liyani. As regards the items that were affected by the break in the chain, there is no question – the Police should have acted faster. The Police admitted that there was a lapse in this area of investigation and I will come back to this later.

Third, the Liews' credibility. The High Court spoke about this. The High Court had doubts about the Liews' credibility, in particular, it highlighted Karl's evidence. It noted the following points about Karl's evidence.

One, Karl did not clearly identify some pieces of clothing in the second charge, such as a black dress as having been in his possession.

Karl also had difficulties with some of the other items of clothing, like a cream Polo t-shirt and a red blouse.

The High Court found Karl's claim that he wore women's t-shirts suspect – I am using the High Court's words.

Karl testified that a Gucci wallet and a Braun Buffel wallet belonged to him and were gifts from his family. However, none of his family members could recall gifting him those specific items. High Court disbelieved his evidence and thought he was being untruthful.

The High Court disbelieved that a Helix watch was a gift from LML. That was Karl's evidence. LML denied having owned such an item.

Karl agreed that a pink knife that he had earlier said he had purchased before 2002, was likely manufactured after that date. The High Court said this affected Karl's credibility and his claim to ownership.

The High Court disbelieved Karl’s evidence that he had bought a bedsheet in the UK, from Habitat and that High Court said he had, I quote, "fabricated his testimony". The bedsheet had the same pattern as a quilt cover which had an IKEA label. Karl's wife, Heather, also testified that she had never seen the bedsheet in her room or on her bed.

A Gerald Genta watch – Karl said initially the value was $25,000. Defence experts put the then current value at $500, given its state: a chronograph pusher was missing, date malfunctioned and the strap needed replacing.

There are two issues here: whether Karl's evidence can be relied upon to convict Ms Liyani; and two, whether Karl was being dishonest.

The High Court chose to give little weight to what he said and said he was unreliable. Given that Ms Liyani's liberty was at stake, I think many lawyers will understand that the whole of Karl's evidence was disregarded, as the High Court did.

The second point – was Karl being dishonest? The High Court thought so.

Arising from this case – and this is an important statement of policy – AGC has decided that hereafter, if any judgment or decision issued in the course of any legal proceedings, contains findings that there may have been perjury or other serious offences, AGC will seriously consider whether there should be further investigations, proceedings, in respect of those indicated offences.

Karl has been investigated as to whether he committed any criminal offences, including perjury. Statements have been taken from Karl on the following points: whether the items highlighted by the High Court had been in his possession; his explanations for his inconsistencies during trial, regarding these items; the investigations have been completed. A statement will be announced later this evening based on these investigations.

Before I move on from the issue of credibility, let me say a few words about both Ms Liyani and the Liews. As I have said before, I am making these points to provide better context to deal with the questions that we are discussing and to better understand the basis on which Police and AGC proceeded.

I want to be brief because there are on-going investigations and proceedings. For the benefit of Members, we have prepared a table which sets out the different items; the evidence, including the inconsistencies in evidence of both Ms Liyani and the Liews, and the explanations, the State Court's views; and the High Court’s views. This is set out at Annex 7. [Please refer to Annex 7.]

Broadly speaking, Ms Liyani gave a number of reasons for her inconsistent answers: one, she did not understand the questions posed; two, the interviewers did not understand her answers or did not record her answers accurately; for example, when she admitted to taking the 10 to 15 items of male clothings; three, she meant to say something different from what was recorded in her statement; four, she was shown unclear or blurry photos of some items, so she might have given the wrong answers because she could not recognise the items properly; five, there was a black bag in her room, which contained items left behind by the previous helper of the Liews' which the previous helper did not want, and the items from that bag may have been packed into the boxes inadvertently by those who were helping Ms Liyani to pack.

As for the Liews, Karl gave inconsistent answers in some areas. And in some instances, the testimony of one of the Liews was either contradicted, or at variance with the evidence of another family member.

There was some debate on the value of some items. An expert witness said that the Helix watch was of "no value", and the Vacheron Constantin and Swatch watches were counterfeit and had no value. This testimony was not directly contradicted. The Defence also put in some articles on Dumpster Diving, suggesting expensive items, like branded bags do get disposed of in the trash in Singapore and thus, Ms Liyani could have picked them up from the trash cans.

The argument is that Ms Liyani could have found, for example, the Prada bag and the jewellery which May says were hers, in the trash. There are various aspects of Ms Liyani’s evidence which prima facie, raise scepticism. There were inconsistencies in many of her answers. Answers changed from one statement to another and from her statements to her evidence in Court. Several aspects of her evidence in Court also raise questions. Items which were said to be found in trash, for example. I will leave Members to reach their own views.

The Police and AGC thought she was untruthful. Based on the Police investigations. They assessed that she did steal and that is why she was charged. I am giving you this summary to let you know how the Police and AGC assessed the matter. And, of course, when they did so, they did not have the benefit of her evidence in Court. The State Court found her to be quite untruthful.

The High Court gave her the benefit of doubt because it was troubled by Karl's improbable, unreliable statements; some other inconsistencies in the Liews' testimonies and their conduct. And for other reasons, relating to the reliability of Ms Liyani's statements, if there were issues with the statement-taking, then that affects the question of whether there were in fact inconsistencies in her statements.

Moving on to the Liews, there are many aspects of Karl's conduct and evidence – some of which I have dealt with – which are highly unsatisfactory, which raise scepticism based on what he said at trial. He appeared not to be a credible witness. Filing a Police report, making claims on items need to be taken seriously. It does not have to be a comprehensive account, but it must be done with careful consideration. Looking at the evidence, the impression one gets is that there seems to have been a cavalier attitude on the part of the Liews in the way some items were identified as belonging to them and in the way values were ascribed to some items.

It is natural to expect that you will know and take your duties seriously when you file a Police report. Be careful in what you say and do, commensurate with your knowledge and experience. When you claim an item, you make sure it is yours. When you ascribe a value, make sure you have a basis.

Questions do arise about how one or more of the Liews have conducted themselves on these and other aspects. I do not want to say more. There is more I would have liked to have said. I have not made any comments about honesty. I have been somewhat restrained because of the investigations and I have referred to a statement that will be issued tonight as a result of the investigations.

In this context again, the key issue for us is to go back to the Police and AGC. They had the statements from the Prosecution witnesses. There was a prima facie case. They did not know that Karl or others would be inconsistent. The inconsistent evidence from Karl and other witnesses came at trial. That is not an unusual occurrence. It happens quite – I would not say quite frequently – but not infrequently. It depends on the cross-examiner, it depends on how much they had thought about it and other reasons.

But it happens often enough, in civil cases as well as criminal cases. So, there is nothing unusual about that either.

I will now deal with the fourth reason given by the High Court in acquitting Ms Liyani. A total of five Police statements were recorded from Ms Liyani. She gave the first four statements in Malay. She gave her fifth statement with the aid of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter.

Section 22(4) of the CPC requires a written statement to be read over to the person who gives it. This is usually done in English. When the person does not understand English, it must be read over in a language that he or she understands. The High Court found that there had been a breach of section 22(4) of the CPC, because Ms Liyani had not been given a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter for her first four statements.

The High Court also said that this was not a "flagrant violation". So, the statements remained admissible in court. They remained as evidence, though the Court will decide what weight to give to it.

In this case, the Police officers believed in good faith that Ms Liyani understood Malay. She had worked in Singapore for over 20 years. The recorder asked Ms Liyani in Malay whether she wished to give her statement in Malay or in Bahasa Indonesia. She chose to speak in Malay. There is no significant difference between Malay and Bahasa Indonesia in the asking of that question. She did not ask for an interpreter during the recording of her statements. The recorder testified in Court that he was able to communicate with her, without any difficulties.

The High Court recognised that she understood some Malay, though the extent of her understanding was unclear to the Court.

The High Court said that differences in the two languages could create reasonable doubt on the accuracy of the statements recorded.

As I said earlier, the Police believed in good faith that Ms Liyani understood Malay. And the Police accept that there are differences between Bahasa Indonesia and our Malay. And in specific words, some words, they could mean different things, in the context of this case and that can make a difference if Ms Liyani did not know the different meanings.

Section 22(4)(b) of the CPC makes clear the key requirement is that the interviewee understands what is being said.

A Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was provided in recording her final statement and when the charges were served on her. The final statement dealt with the majority of the areas covered in the previous statements recorded from Ms Liyani and the items in the charges that were tendered.

So, on that basis, her final statement is not affected by any issues relating to interpretation.

At trial, Ms Liyani said that she may not have understood some aspects of the final statement because it was read back in a mixture of Malay and Bahasa Indonesia, and that the interpreter was "talking too fast".

The High Court dismissed that claim. The statement reflected that it had been read back in Bahasa Indonesia, and Ms Liyani had affirmed that to be correct and true.

I will now, Sir, deal with the specific issues that have been pointed out by the High Court in respect of the Police investigations, AGC and the State Court's judgment.

I have earlier set out the facts that the Police had, after the investigations. They disclosed a prima facie case of theft. Police act in public interest.

There are about 250,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore, employed by more than 200,000 families. When there is a complaint of theft, Police need to be fair to both the employer and the domestic worker. It means Police will have to investigate properly when there is a prima facie case and let AGC decide whether to prosecute. If as a rule, Police take no action and if it is known that Police would not take action, Members can work out what the consequences will be for themselves, as in you can think and work out the consequences what such an approach will mean.

We have to approach this with the perspective of both the 250,000 foreign domestic workers, to be fair to them but also to the 200,000-odd families who employ them. If they believe that their employees have stolen or done something wrong, what are they supposed to do? It could be any one of these families. So, we have to be very careful in how we deal with this.

Police investigated about 66,200 criminal cases in 2016. I am referring to 2016, for illustrative purposes. And they were handled by about 1,100 IOs. Of the 66,200 cases, 14,122 were theft-related offences, in 2016. They resulted in 6,128 arrests.

If we drill down to theft as a servant, under section 381 of the Penal Code, there were 500 arrests in 2016 of whom 246 were foreign domestic workers. So, theft as servant cases involving foreign domestic workers, roughly one every 1.5 days or two every three days. Of those 246 arrests, 58 were prosecuted – 24%. So, three in four not prosecuted; one in four prosecuted. Who gets prosecuted? It is based on investigations and assessment by Police and AGC. And also, even when there is some case but if it is not clear, sometimes, warnings are given.

I have explained earlier the reasons for the prosecution in this case.

The case was handled by the Police like they handle any routine theft case. It was handled by the IO and cleared by his immediate supervisor. I say IO when he was out, one or other IOs did handle it as well, but at the level of the investigation officer, cleared by his immediate supervisor. This was a routine matter, cleared via normal channels.

The matter was not considered or brought to the attention of anyone senior, at any time. Except that many of us came to know about it, when it was reported in the media. I will come back to this later.

So, the question is, was there a clear, prima facie case for the Police to investigate? There was such a case. The Police had a duty to investigate. If any Member feels that Police should not have investigated, I would be happy to hear and understand their perspective.

The High Court commented on investigative processes, pointed out three aspects, which it felt were deficient. I will deal with all three.

First, that there was a gap between the Police report being filed on 30 October 2016 and the Police looking at the items, on 3 December 2016. The scene should have been visited by the Police close to the time of the Police report. This was a lapse, which affected some, but not all, of the items in the charges.

In terms of the acquittal, the High Court also acquitted Ms Liyani in respect of the items not affected by the break in the chain. So, the break in itself may not have affected the outcome given the High Court's reasoning.

However, there can be no excuse for this lapse on the part of the Police officer. It is a breach of a legal requirement; it is also a breach of Police protocol, both of which require the Police to respond to a crime scene promptly, or as soon as practicable.

The broader objective of these requirements is to ensure the integrity of relevant evidence by securing it into Police custody or otherwise obtaining a proper record of it.

Whether there has to be a seizure in any specific case must depend on the facts of the case, the nature of the exhibits and evidence. However, even if there is no seizure, it is necessary to obtain a proper record of the evidence, such as by careful photography of the items.

In this case, careful photography, soon after the Police report was filed, may have been good enough. But that was not done.

I said there can be no excuse. I have nevertheless asked for an explanation as to why this has happened. I am told that the officer involved had a number of other on-going cases, prosecutions, arrest operations and a very personal matter that he had to deal with. He seems to have been under a lot of pressure. He was in a predicament. It is a situation that many Home Team officers find themselves in. It is a reality of what our officers go through.

Nevertheless, internal investigations are being carried out in relation to the conduct of the officers involved in this case and action will be taken, as necessary.

I must say, Sir, I have noticed in various parts of the Civil Service, quite a lot of our officers are under work pressure. I have mentioned it at other points in this House. It is a general situation in some workplaces, many workplaces in Singapore with tight manpower issues, particularly in several areas of the Civil Service.

I have asked for a review of the workload of Police investigation officers, though quite frankly, there is no easy solution because fundamentally, it is a manpower issue. Technology has helped, will help, but that has limits.

The Police are also looking into online case management systems, to prompt officers on next steps in investigative workflows and ensure accountability and minimise the risk of lapses in investigations.

Next, I turn to photos. The second point that the High Court made about the Police was that "poor quality" black-and-white photos were shown to Ms Liyani.

Police agree that colour photos would have been more effective. Colour photos were shown to Ms Liyani in her final statement when a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was also provided.

Police will take on board the High Court's comments, which are fair.

The Police's review has shown that the layout of the photographs was also not satisfactory. Some photos featured multiple items in a single photograph, with some overlapping and partially obscured.

The third point the High Court made: the inaccuracies in recording the statements, the pace at which the questions were asked and the time when one statement was taken. And thirdly, the provision of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter.

I have dealt with the interpretation issue earlier. On this issue, I have said to Police officers we need to make sure accused persons understand the statement recording process, what it involves, what is required of them. I have asked the Police to ask what language the person wishes to speak, which they do, but also explain briefly what the process entails and the purpose of the statement. And that the accused may ask for an interpreter at any time and that this should be recorded as part of the statement.

The High Court also pointed out that there were inaccuracies in the way questions were phrased and there were grammatical errors.

Police have said to me that it is difficult to make sure there are no grammatical errors. But I think everybody agrees they need to try and make sure grammatical errors, if any, should not affect the interpretation and understanding of the statement itself.

The Police accept the point made about the time when statements are taken. Sometimes, the timing is inevitable, because of the legal requirement to release a person under investigation, within 48 hours. The Police will have to make an assessment on whether the person is capable of understanding the questions at the time the statements are taken.

As I have said, Police will take the comments on board.

The High Court also made observations about the AGC on how the functionality of the DVD player was demonstrated in Court. AGC has filed an affidavit explaining its position on record.

The matter is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings. And thus, I will refrain from commenting on this. I have been given a detailed note by AGC. I can set out the position, but I prefer not to. The disciplinary proceedings are by nature, disciplinary. There are possible penal sanctions. There will be full account of what the DPPs did, at the Disciplinary Tribunal or DT. The key question before us is whether there was any improper influence on them.

Minister Indranee has discussed this with Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, who was also concerned that we should not go into this in Parliament. Let the DT handle it. The proceedings are penal in nature. I think lawyers will understand why we take this approach.

AGC has also identified specific areas where it needs to improve. I will mention two areas.

First, the valuation of items that are the subject of property offences. In this case, the valuation of the items in the charges were derived from the Liew family's estimates. This has been the general practice hitherto, to rely on the complainant's assessment of the value. There are currently no formal guidelines for Prosecutors on the issue of valuation. Prosecutors are expected to use their judgement and discretion. AGC is developing guidelines on this issue. Independent assessment of the value of the items may have helped in respect of some of the items in this case.

Second, AGC is also looking at how it prepares for trials and will seek to learn from this and other cases.

There is a further, but general and important point. Prosecution's overarching role is to ensure that justice is done and not to win the case at all costs. The point is not being made by reference to this case. It is a general point. AGC has consistently emphasised this point to all its officers and will continue to do so. The Attorney-General himself has also publicly stressed his Chambers' commitment to the principle of even-handed justice, in his speeches at the Openings of the Legal Year, and elsewhere.

Now, I will move to the High Court's views on the State Court's judgment.

First, some background on cases dealt with by the State Courts. The State Courts deal with most of the criminal cases in Singapore. The appeals go to the High Court. About 10% of these appeals succeed, for instance, in setting aside the convictions or reducing the sentence. Ms Liyani’s case falls in that 10%.

This 10% of cases – there can be different views on evidence, on law, the exigencies of trial process, for example, witnesses say different things or something new turns up. The High Court disagreed with the Trial Judge's assessment of the evidence and made observations.

With that as background, I will say the views expressed by the High Court fall within the range of cases where an Appellate Court disagrees with a Lower Court.

In some of these cases, the Appellate Court does take a different interpretation of the evidence, draws different inferences, comes to different conclusions. That is the function of the Appellate Court when it takes the view that the Lower Court has made an error.

In 2018 and 2019, there were 16 appeals by the accused against conviction, when the Appellate Court disagreed with the Lower Court and reversed the decision. Nine were appeals from the State Courts to the High Court and seven were appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. So, even between the High Court and Court of Appeal, there are differences of view.

For example, in one of the cases Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v PP & anor [2019] 1 SLR 440, chain of custody issues also arose. In another case, PP v GCK [2020] SGCA 2, the State Court convicted the accused for outrage of modesty. He was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment, three strokes of the cane. The High Court reversed the conviction, and acquitted the accused, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence. On a criminal reference, the Court of Appeal reinstated the conviction but substituted the original sentence, with a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.

So, our State Court: one view. High Court: different view. Court of Appeal: a different view again.

The question for us, as I have said more than once, is not which Court was right or wrong. The key question: was the case conducted fairly in both Courts?

The State Court heard evidence from 12 Prosecution witnesses, four Defence witnesses, including Ms Liyani, over 20 days. It had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, consider their evidence, Ms Liyani’s submissions, and it made its findings. The High Court considered the Lower Court’s findings and Ms Liyani’s further submissions over three days and came to a different view.

This became a long and somewhat complex, or complicated, case. The Record of Proceedings runs to almost 3,700 pages.

I have brought this House through some of the issues in detail, as I said earlier, to give Members a slightly better appreciation of the evidence. The matter was thoroughly ventilated and considered by both the State Courts and the High Court. It was one of those 10% of cases where the Appeal Court disagreed with the Lower Court.

Sir, I have covered the points specific to the case. Let me now set out what happened in summary: one, there was clear evidence for the Police to investigate and for the AGC to prosecute this case; the Police and AGC dealt with this case like they deal with other theft cases.

There are questions about some aspects of one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, the claim of ownership of some items and the valuation by them – that appears to have been quite cavalier, to say the least.

Questions also arise about Ms Liyani’s conduct and evidence. The High Court gave Ms Liyani the benefit of doubt because it was troubled by one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, and because there were questions relating to her statements.

There are aspects of trial preparation where Police and AGC can improve.

Finally, the key point: there was nothing improper nor any undue pressure on the Police or AGC at any stage of these investigations and proceedings and no evidence of any personal connection between the Liews and any Police officer, DPP, Judge involved in this case.

I have gone through all of this because we have to show the Police and the AGC did not act arbitrarily, or as the result of the influence of a rich and influential family.

Those were the accusations that circulated immediately after the learned Justice Chan issued his judgment – that there was a grave miscarriage of justice, and AGC and the Police were asked to apologise.

What I put forward to this House show that the Police and AGC had good grounds to charge Ms Liyani. They certainly did not act at the behest of the Liew family. And this is how our system is supposed to work – Police and AGC made up their assessments based on the evidence.

The State Court agreed with the prosecution and convicted Ms Liyani. The High Court disagreed, overtuned the conviction, felt there were reasonable grounds to doubt the motives of the Liew family in making the Police report. Again, this shows how our system works.

The rest, Sir, I will deal with in Part 2. What I have said is the fundamental question relating to our systems. And I wonder, Sir, if this is an appropriate time to take a break.

Sounds like it would be. Order. I propose to take a break now and take the Sitting at 4.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Minister K Shanmugam.

Sir, in Part 2, I will go to the broader questions that I identified, which is an inquiry, or rather, the questions I have dealt with in Part 1 inquiring into how the investigations and prosecution were conducted. Here, I want to go into the broader questions. The key question is whether the case was handled differently because of the status of the complainant or if there has been any improper influence.

Really, if I were to put it this way – did LML in any way influence these proceedings or was the case investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rules like any other case?

I have said it earlier and I will reiterate. I can be categorical. There was no influence by LML. It was treated as any other theft case and handled accordingly. We have checked with the IOs, their supervisor, the DPPs and their director. They have confirmed this. There was no pressure or influence exerted on them by LML or anyone acting on his behalf, and they handled this case as they have handled other theft cases.

I will now deal with the Police. I have set out how the Police handled the matter and what they took into account. It was dealt with by the IOs. Decisions were taken by them, together with their immediate supervisor. The case did not come to the attention of the senior management either at the Police or in my Ministry. No one senior has spoken with or been influenced by LML or any of the Liews on this case. Meaning, as I said, it was dealt with by the IOs and their immediate supervisor and no one beyond that. No one lobbied or exerted pressure either on the IOs or on the supervisor, or on anyone in a position to influence the investigations.

Turning to AGC, I have explained how the matter was dealt with by AGC. It was dealt with by DPPs and cleared at the level of a Director. Again, neither LML nor anyone acting for them, approached AGC or had any contact with AGC in this case. AGC dealt with Police.

There have been some questions asked specific to the Attorney-General, that he was on the Board of Directors of Capitaland between 20 November 2000 and 2 January 2006 when LML was the President and CEO. As a result, did AG in any way influence the proceedings? The answer is no. AG did not know of these investigations or proceedings until the case went for trial.

There is a further point. AG resigned from the Capitaland Board with effect from 2 January 2006. He resigned because he had a difference of viewpoints with LML on some issues. When AGC conducted its internal review on this matter, AG recused himself. AG felt that given the history of differences he has had with LML, the perception of fairness may be affected if AG oversaw the review. Thus, AG had nothing to do with this case at any stage. The case was conducted by the State Courts in open Court in accordance with the Rules.

This case is, in fact, an illustration of how the Rule of Law applies. A foreign domestic worker is charged, the High Court acquits her, the Complainant is a wealthy, powerful person, but all are equal before the Law. It does not matter who the parties are, Justice according to the facts and the Law as the Courts see it.

We may agree or disagree with the State Court's or High Court’s decisions and conclusions, but that is a different matter.

If you look at it at a systemic level, at the highest level, you talk about the criminal justice system – we have the Police who investigate in accordance with the legal framework for Police investigations. AGC make the charging decision based on available evidence and public interest. The Trial Courts consider the sufficiency of the evidence and the legal issues. The Appellate Courts review the decision of the Trial Court. The case shows that the criminal justice system, as a whole, works.

If you drill down to the next level, we have "systems". For example, these would comprise investigative protocols, SOPs for how the Police and the DPPs operate. I have mentioned some errors that were made, we have to try and strengthen the "systems" at that level, try and prevent re-occurrence. I have also mentioned the challenges.

Besides these levels to the system, there will always be the risk of mistakes by individuals. These lapses will have to be dealt with.

Sir, the idea of Rule of Law is central to our ideas of fairness, equality and justice. It is even more important in the current zeitgeist that is sweeping through countries. Societies around the world are grappling with debates on inequality, a sense that the elite are creaming off most of the economic benefits and bending the rules and systems to their advantage, and in the process buying off, suborning those in Government. People are fed up with unfair structures; equal opportunities are drying up.

In Singapore, we are not in the same situation. Our active intervention in socio-economic issues has helped most people to benefit. But our people know we must jealously guard the availability of equal opportunities. We must ensure that everyone has a fair shake. We must be alert, guard against the wealthy and the powerful taking unfair advantages.

If a significant section of our people feel that the system favours some, or that it is unfairly stacked against them, then Singapore will lose its cohesion and it cannot succeed. Thus, it is essential that we have a fair system, that we have a clean system, that we have a system that gives opportunities to all.

These are our fundamental concerns. If LML did unfairly influence the proceedings, then it will be a hit to our foundations and it will be a hit to our sense of fairness, equality and justice. And a dent to Project Singapore itself because Singapore is built on these ideals.

We have always been jealous about guarding against such corrosion. It does not mean that there will be no abuse of power and no corruption. But when it happens, swift, decisive action must be taken.

Members will know successive Governments have been clear about this. There has to be a ruthless intensity in upholding integrity. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set the tone. The case of Mr Teh Cheang Wan is a prime example of the approach. He was one of the most senior Members in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Cabinet. But when corruption allegations surfaced, Mr Lee directed the CPIB to conduct investigations. Mr Teh was placed on leave of absence. He ultimately chose to end his life rather than face trial or corruption charges, which the AGC had then yet to settle. Mr Lee said at that time, and I quote, "There is no way a Minister can avoid investigations and a trial if there is evidence to support one."

These were the values of our Founding Generation and these are and have to be our continuing values. They have been scrupulously stressed and adhered to by the two succeeding Prime Ministers. They are like religious commandments. There cannot be any compromise. When there is a breach, action is taken, will be taken. Let me refer to some cases.

In 2012, you had Peter Lim, Commissioner of SCDF – in fact, he was Commissioner of SCDF when I was Minister for Home Affairs too – convicted of corruption charges for receiving sexual favours with three different women, sentenced to six months' imprisonment, dismissed from public service following disciplinary proceedings.

In 2013, you had Mr Edwin Yeo, Assistant Director of CPIB, misappropriating money, jailed for 10 years for criminal breach of trust or CBT as a public servant and forgery.

In 2007, you had Mr TT Durai, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation, convicted for corruption, sentenced to imprisonment; appeal to the High Court dismissed.

In 2012, you had Mr Howard Shaw, then-Executive Director of the Singapore Environment Council, convicted for obtaining commercial sex with minors; had asked for a nominal fine based on testimonials of his good character and social standing. Court found no exceptional circumstances; 12 weeks' imprisonment. Sentence was to provide a strong deterrent to others.

Peter Lim was a senior Home Team officer. In many countries, his actions would not have attracted criminal punishment. In most countries, Commissioners of SCDF, Assistant Directors of CPIB, are pretty much untouchable. But not in Singapore. The message is it does not matter who you are, if you do wrong, action will be taken.

But it is not only corruption that we must guard against. We must also guard against what I call soft corruption and influence peddling.

Let me quote what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee have said. In 1984, Mr Lee said, and I quote, "We exercised power as trustees for the people, with an abiding sense of our fiduciary responsibility. Our honour, our sense of duty made us exercise power scrupulously. We have curbed, restrained, prevented any distortion of policies which would have been inevitable if the personal interests of the few in charge were allowed full rein. This is the case in many new countries.

When those in office regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative, they inevitably enrich themselves, promote their families, favour their friends. The fundamental structures of the modern state are eroded, like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked them. Then, the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders.”

And as early as 1961, the late Dr Goh warned about the risks, that groups of elites might create an environment that would favour one community at the expense of another. In an article in Nanyang University journal, 1961, he said, and I quote, "To achieve an honest and energetic administration appears easy in theory. In practice, very few of the young and emergent nations have achieved this. Even in the most advanced and leading societies, whether communist or democratic, the problem of nepotism is a recurring one and can only be countered by constant vigilance.

In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism that is to be feared, but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no illegalities are committed, but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families. In underdeveloped countries, the matter could be more serious. A system may arise in which the dominant majority, whether of families, clans or even entire communities, arrogates to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant majority is thus able to point out that those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to this elite group.

Thus, many able and aspiring people are denied the opportunity for the full use of their abilities."

I personally find these words very powerful, insightful and have more than once quoted this speech of Dr Goh in my own speeches because Dr Goh, I think, has identified precisely a serious, insidious risk in any society including ours. We are not that special that we can be immune to these risks. We have to constantly make sure that we do not allow it. We have to be very careful to try and stamp it out wherever it appears, and make no mistake, make no mistake. It will keep appearing in big and small ways.

This is again something successive Prime Ministers have been vigilant about. One illustration of that is the letter that the Prime Minister sends out at the start of each new term of the House. Most Members are aware of the letter. I have put it in Annex 8. [Please refer to Annex 8.]

I will quote parts: "the context each time may be different but the subject remains constant. Integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance. One vital factor to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity.

The reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. I cannot stress strongly enough every Member of Parliament (MP) must uphold the rigorous standards we have set for ourselves, do nothing to compromise them, never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers. A few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence Ministries and Statutory Boards, to make decisions in their favour. Personal favours, big and small, are just some of the countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obliged to them. At all times, be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.

Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies or who sit on company boards, should be especially vigilant. You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must be always above board. We have held our position because our integrity has never been in doubt. Always conduct yourselves with modesty, decorum, dignity."

I can tell Members this. This is all not just nice sounding advice. Even before it reaches the kind of conduct referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter, if we feel that there is some conduct that requires a closer look, we do take a closer look. I am referring here to conduct which is not criminal, not a breach of ethics, but which in our view should be avoided; something that may be legal but, for example, lead eventually to something which is not of so good odour.

When we sense that, I usually have a chat with the relevant MP. They come, have a cup of coffee with me. When they leave, the issue is usually resolved. And if it is not resolved, then they do not remain as MPs. But do not worry, it does not happen every time people come and have coffee with me.

If it is criminal, of course, there will be prosecution. And there have been MPs and ex-MPs who have been prosecuted. If there are breaches of other rules, the respective professional or regulatory bodies will take action, as they have done. We do not intervene or try and stop any of this.

I have dealt with this at some length because we must understand these are fundamental values. And if we do not keep them, we will be in trouble. In Singapore, in this context, we have a more challenging environment because we are a small place. A lot of people know each other – many educational, professional, work-related, social familial connections. Same schools, colleges, Universities, time spent in National Service, other connections. People interact with each other frequently. We try and look for the people on the basis of merit and they will often, because of their careers and education, have deep connection with many others whom they interact with.

The way we handle this – make sure the persons appointed are men and women of character. They have the moral fibre to do the right thing.

Earlier I had said, the Attorney-General recused himself from the review because of his history with LML. What will the position be if he was, in fact, a close friend of LML? We will expect him to disclose that and recuse himself as well from any decision making. This is how the system works.

Let me give a few examples. Prof S Jayakumar, when he was Minister for Law, what were his connections? When he was Dean, Law School, the then-AG’s wife had been his Vice-Dean. Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had been his law school contemporary. Former Commissioner of Police Goh Yong Hong was also his law school contemporary. And the succeeding Commissioner of Police Tee Tua Ba was Prof Jaya’s law student. The Attorney-General and I were his law students as well. I had spent 22 years in private practice; I worked with many Senior Counsels, senior lawyers, appeared before many Judges.

Our small size means these connections and interactions are inevitable. And so, we will always have to be very careful, always remember we are fiduciaries. This is a sacred trust. We do this for the people. We do the right thing. Do not allow any corrosion of public interest. Act with honour. Be worthy of the trust people have reposed in us. It is critical that, whatever the relationship, the Government maintains high standards of probity, of conduct so that decisions are made on objective and impartial assessment.

And have we lived up to those standards? Members can ask that question honestly. What is the lived reality for Singaporeans? How much corruption do people encounter here? We rank highly on credible international indices, for absence of corruption, for rule of law, for the way our system functions cleanly. This is a country known for all these – and that continues to be the case.

What happens if you allow the system to go awry? What happens when you allow influence peddling? What happens when you allow corruption, abuse of position, abuse of power? Let me just give a couple of examples.

First, the US. Influence peddling has become part and parcel of politics and governance. The US Supreme Court has said: “Ingratiation and access embody a central feature of democracy.” Not against the law for officials to set up meetings, host events, call other officials on behalf of lobbyists. Big businesses extensively lobby regulators, using middlemen.

I personally think this is not good for the healthy functioning of society. Lobbying itself in the US is a massive business. Big Pharma, for example, spent US$4.45 billion on lobbying alone over the last 22 years. And it works. One study found that regulators were 45% less likely to initiate enforcement action against banks that lobby versus banks that do not.

The experience of South Africa offers another example. In South Africa, "State Capture" is a buzzword because of how private interests have exerted influence over government decision-making and used this influence to plunder the state. Corruption scandals involving the former President and the Gupta brothers are the most famous examples. It is, of course, an extreme example of the system going awry.

The critical question for us: how do we ensure that the system stays clean, that we do not allow what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee warned against? We have a media that highlights these issues. See the number of articles that have appeared on this matter in the Singapore media - accountability, because a well-educated, aware population that holds us accountable; and Parliament, where we have these issues to be openly discussed, debated. All these are essential. But these factors are also present in many countries where influence peddling is, nevertheless, a cancer.

We have avoided that slippery path because, in addition to the above, we have had in our three Prime Ministers the strong will to ensure a clean system and the decisiveness to act when something goes wrong. And always, always, regardless of your rules and regardless of your systems, the rot starts at the top. If the top is clean, then your systems can work well. And we have got to make sure of that. And if it starts, then very few things can save such a country.

In this case, if we had seen anything wrong by way of influence peddling, swift, open, transparent action would have been taken.

Sir, I have spoken at some length on the case and on the broader issues. Now I will deal with the questions Members have raised by way of Parliamentary Questions, or PQs, which I have not already dealt with.

Mr Murali Pillai, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Derrick Goh have asked a number of questions about the High Court’s observations, the agencies’ processes, the internal reviews and related questions. Part 1 of my Statement has covered these points. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Derrick Goh have also asked for some information on foreign domestic workers, theft cases, Court proceedings.

I have said earlier, Police investigate around 14,000, in fact, 14,122 theft-related cases – I think that was in 2016. For the specific offence of Theft as a Servant, an average of 528 arrests annually, about 48% of them are foreign domestic workers. On average, about 70, or 27% of the 255 foreign domestic workers, were prosecuted. We do not track data on how many of them claimed trial or how many of them had legal representation.

At the same time, on the reverse side of the coin, from 2015 to 2019, 115 employers were prosecuted for committing offences against foreign domestic workers. This includes cases of physical and sexual abuse. Sixty-five persons have been convicted, 21 cases are pending.

Mr Louis Ng asked if foreign domestic workers and other work permit holders can be accompanied by non-legal personnel, similar to the Appropriate Adults, or AAs, scheme, for Police interviews. From 2015 to 2019, an average of 2,741 foreign workers on work permits were arrested each year as potential accused. Interviews have to be done quickly. I have earlier said Police are already very stretched. Let us not stretch them further. It will be a very difficult exercise. Appropriate Adults attended to 2,300 activations in 2019. These cases involved minors and mentally vulnerable persons.

If we had to provide AAs for every foreign worker interviewed, we would have to minimally double the current volunteer pool, provide the training and resourcing; and some may require more than one statement, and this will become a real constraint and load on the Police. And each time you have an interview, you have to look for an Appropriate Adult. Interviews will be delayed if the AA is not available. Evidence could go missing. There are other issues.

The foreign workers are adults. The key is for Police to make sure that the foreign workers understand the questions and their answers are properly recorded. And it has to be open for scrutiny in Court, which it is.

So that Members can understand the load on our officers, I will share the following. As I said earlier, Police investigated 66,200 criminal cases in 2016 and they were handled by 1,100 IOs. Just to give Members a sense, the ratio of Police officers to population – I have spoken about this previously in the House and I am here referring to Police officers in general, not just IOs – New York at 0.42%, London at 0.34%, Hong Kong at 0.39%, Singapore at 0.23%, including full-time National Servicemen.

If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would need 9,100 more officers. My entire Police force today comprises 13,200 Police officers, including National Servicemen. If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would have to have 9,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as London, we would need 6,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as New York, we would need 11,000 more officers.

So, Members can understand and appreciate the load on our officers and, as I have said, I have spoken about this in the House more than once. And my concern is that there is a limit to how much our officers can do with increasing workload and increasing expectations, but without a proportionate increase in manpower.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked how many State Court Judges had previously worked as prosecutors in the AGC and whether the Ministry will review the policy of separation of duties. This point has come up previously and let me put it this way.

The total number of lawyers in our Legal Service and Judiciary, excluding High Court Judges, is 801. That is a relatively small number. In this context, the question is: why are officers posted between the State Courts and other parts of the Legal Service? Can there be independence if they are liable to be cross-posted?

Let me quote something quite dated. Mr A P Rajah, a former Speaker and High Court Judge, said in 1963: “He thinks that if you are a DPP, then you cannot be a good District Judge; if you are a District Judge, then you cannot be a good DPP; if you are a first-rate DPP, then you cannot make a first-rate Assize Judge. He seems to suffer from that misapprehension. Merely to say that because one has been a DPP and that, therefore, when he gets on to the Bench, he is going to side with the prosecution, is not correct and is not fair to the profession.”

I am not suggesting that Mr Lim Biow Chuan or anyone else is under any misapprehension. I think it is a fair question. And this was said in 1963 when the number of officers was much smaller. What is the situation now? Today, all movements in the Legal Service are overseen by Personnel Boards and/or Committees all chaired by the Chief Justice, and the Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the President.

The Legal Service Commission takes the view that rotation has three major benefits.

One, it provides access to a larger pool of talent to select State Court Judges with the right blend of temperament, knowledge and experience.

Two, it develops Legal Service Officers (LSOs) into well-rounded officers by exposing them to, and training them in, different fields of legal work and allowing them to learn about their strengths and weaknesses. And this benefits the Legal Service and Singapore, no matter where the LSOs are posted in future.

Three, this also gives flexibility, for instance, to accommodate LSOs who want to try different types of work, or LSOs who have a change of heart about their preferred line of work. Judges who have prosecutorial experience will bring added knowledge to the work.

However, significant changes have also been made. In 2014, the Prime Minister announced greater specialisation in the Legal Service. There are now two separate career tracks for the middle ranks of LSOs. One is the “Legal” track and the other is the “Judicial” track. LSOs on the Judicial track are posted to jobs within the Judicial Branch and they are assessed by a separate Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board headed by the Chief Justice.

The Prime Minister explained why this was done: “We need a first-class Legal Service that in turn calls for a first-class personnel management system to attract and retain the best people, to remunerate them fairly with reference to the market, to groom talent systematically and prepare them for leadership positions and to imbue officers with the right values and commitment to Singapore." Up to now, we have always decided to stick to the integrated model because we had too few officers to support two separate services and we believed that LSOs would have a better career path in one single integrated service.

But it is timely for us to review the position again, in the light of changing circumstances. First, because the Legal Service is much larger, so officers can specialise without conscribing their career prospects. Second, because the scope and complexity of work, whether in the Government Ministries, whether in AGC or in the Courts, the scope of work has in all cases grown enormously in the Government, in the Ministries – there are more responsibilities. Hence, we need more specialist and expert skills than ever before.

Thus, the Legal Service Commission or LSC introduced two separate career tracks for LSOs up to Grade 3 – the "Legal" and "Judicial" tracks. Eligible officers can elect to specialise along either track. They will then be posted to jobs within either the Legal Branch or the Judicial Branch.

To oversee the two career tracks, two new Personnel Boards under the LSC – the Legal Branch Personnel Board and the Judicial Branch Personnel Board – were established. These Boards manage the LSOs in the respective Branches.

However, even as we promote more specialisation, it is critical that the Legal Service operates as an integrated whole. The specialisation into the two tracks is for the middle ranks of the Legal Service. Junior officers starting out on their careers will still be posted to different departments and across branches to develop them in different fields of legal work.

Beyond Grade 3, the senior officers at Grade 2 and above will still be managed by the Legal Service Commission because at that level of seniority, there will only be very few officers and it is necessary to continue with the integrated model to provide better career options and flexibility in deployment to meet the needs of the Service.

The approach we have adopted strikes a balance between specialisation and integration, with safeguards for judicial independence. The system is working well. And we think that this is what is good for Singapore.

Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked whether there can be an expedited trial process for foreign economically vulnerable accused persons and he has also asked about the interpretation services in SPF.

First, on the trial processes, the median time taken in the Courts for a criminal case from being first charged in Court to judgment is 15 months – median. Depends on the nature of the case, availability of counsels, DPPs, how long the trial itself takes, documents, witnesses, challenges that the Prosecution and Defence make, and time taken for deliberation.

The State Courts, as I said earlier, handle about 600 criminal trials per year. We have 55 judges to handle these trials. Again, it is a very heavy load for the State Courts. About a quarter, 22% of these cases, involved foreigners.

If we expedite a case for a foreign person, then a Singaporean accused will have to wait even longer, if we take Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestion. So, having a criminal case pending, why should we make Singaporeans suffer disproportionately more?

If I can give one example. We had a 51-year old Singaporean accused person charged in March of this year for two counts of shop theft. He claimed trial to the charges against him and was remanded. In June 2020, AGC assessed that his remand period, three months at that point, might outstrip his possible sentence even if he were to be convicted. At the Public Prosecutor's request, the trial was brought forward and conducted on an urgent basis. A two-day trial was conducted, after which he was convicted and sentenced to 16 weeks' of jail.

There will be many other cases like this but even if there is no specific remand situation, if you bring forward some people in the queue, the others in the queue will have to wait longer. And I do not think it is fair to Singaporeans to do what Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested.

Second, on the interpretation service, I have given a fairly extensive answer. The Police currently employ a pool of interpreters for the three official working languages – that is, Chinese, Malay and Tamil – as well as more common local dialects – Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese.

The Police will engage the services of interpreters if the interviewee is unable to understand the language used by the interviewer or vice versa. For foreign languages, the Police will engage the services of foreign language interpreters on an ad hoc basis. There is a framework to assess the suitability of interpreters, which includes their qualifications and relevant work experience.

As regards Ms Liyani in this case, she was asked. She said she could speak in Malay. The point is: does the interviewee understand the language being used? And as I said earlier, the Police have been told – they must really check this.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Leong Mun Wai have asked about increasing legal aid for accused in criminal cases; and secondly, increasing the honoraria paid for lawyers under CLAS. Ms Carrie Tan has specifically also asked if we will consider having a public defender scheme to defend accused persons in criminal cases.

Let me give Members some background to the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS. CLAS aims to provide legal aid to persons facing non-capital charges. It is administered by the Law Society's Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS. This scheme was started in 1985. The initiative came from the Law Society, senior lawyers, in particular the late Mr Harry Elias. And it was an outstanding initiative by the profession.

There is in place a framework, an assessment process, means and merit tests applied in each case to try and ensure that funding is targeted, allocated to applicants who are most vulnerable and who genuinely need assistance.

The Government pays 75% of CLAS' operating costs. This goes towards general operating costs, including staff salaries and overheads. This was decided in 2014. I announced it and it started from 2015.

Where the accused are Singapore Citizens or PRs, the money can also be used to pay honoraria. CLAS funds the remaining 25% of its costs through private donations. Law Society pays some. And this sum is also used to defend foreigners who need criminal legal aid.

But I should make clear. I have referred to honoraria. The honoraria that is paid is extremely nominal. It is effectively pro bono.

It is a system where the Government funds some part; the private sector funds some part, through cash donations, lawyers giving their time.

Should we change the model and go for full Government-funded criminal legal aid? Let me first give Members a sense of the experiences of other countries. I will just give the experience of two countries though we can look at many countries' experiences.

The United Kingdom, or at least England and Wales, offer a fully government-funded criminal legal aid scheme which comprises both a public defender scheme with in-house government lawyers and a legal aid scheme that outsources cases to private lawyers.

There has been much public debate and outcry in the UK over these schemes for various reasons, including abuse and escalating government costs.

First, there has been much unhappiness over the large legal aid fees, especially evident in cases where legal aid was spent on lengthy trials for defendants who were ultimately convicted. For example, three men who were accused of the murder of a policeman known as Andrew Harper. When they tried to evade arrest, he tried arresting them, they killed him, it cost the UK taxpayer S$817,000 in legal aid fees in 2008. And they were convicted of manslaughter in the end.

Another case was that of Ben Butler and his partner Jennie Gray, who were convicted of murdering Butler's six-year-old daughter and of child cruelty. Both were granted nearly S$2.64 million in legal aid expenses, covering both their criminal cases and a custody battle with the child's grandparents.

There have been many reports about rich defendants who received legal aid as their assets were frozen, but they remained wealthy enough as the state did not manage to seize all their assets.

Around 50 defendants with more than S$1.76 million in illegally obtained assets were found to have received legal aid in 2012. One of these was Virendra Rastogi, a London metals trading tycoon, who owned a S$10.55-million home, arrived in court every day in a chauffeur-driven car and he received S$8.79 million worth of criminal legal aid. These defendants were ordered to repay their legal aid costs but some failed to pay up despite court demands.

Given the large legal aid costs, it has been difficult for the UK government to sustain this level of spending. The government has had to implement drastic cuts to legal aid budgets since 2012, but these reforms were strongly opposed by the legal industry. Lawyers deemed the reformed fee schedules to be inadequate, went on strikes in 2014 and again, in 2018, to oppose cuts, disrupting court proceedings and delaying the resolution of criminal cases.

In one case, a convicted drug dealer was allowed to keep his alleged $7.9 million fortune because of delays in finding a legal aid lawyer to represent him in confiscation hearings. The lawyers' protests eventually resulted in more watered down reforms, continued escalating legal aid costs for the government and legal aid lawyers won a $40 million fee rise after the 2018 strike.

You must note: once you make legal aid a requirement, then you cannot proceed with the case until you find a lawyer who is willing to handle it for the fees that he proposes.

If we take Ms Liyani's case as an example, the Defence Counsel has estimated that if full fees were charged, it could have cost about $150,000. If we make criminal legal aid a requirement, then the taxpayers will have to pay that amount or whatever the Defence Counsel requires. It could be more, it could be less, or have the trial postponed until a lawyer is found.

This is what is happening elsewhere. So, I welcome suggestions but Members, please look at these points. And then, when you make your points, maybe offer concrete suggestions on how we can avoid what has happened elsewhere, if we want to go down this route.

My second example is Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a fully government-funded public defender scheme that outsources part of its cases to private lawyers and the Law Society. Hong Kong spent a total of $217 million on both civil and criminal legal aid in 2017. Hong Kong has also experienced escalating legal aid budgets due to continued increase in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year.

This is why we have been very careful.

We also looked at the situation in Australia, New Zealand – raised similar issues. I would go into them, but we knew it can get very costly and very difficult to manage.

So, in our situation, we have actually been very fortunate because our legal profession has worked with Law Society, the Government. We have got CLAS. It has been a cooperative relationship and a strong public spirit. We make Singapore a vibrant legal centre. It means our lawyers do well in the other areas and we are able to encourage the pro bono spirit at the same time.

Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked can we increase the honoraria that is paid to lawyers under CLAS. My preference is to keep the probono spirit. A mix of lawyers employed specifically by CLAS, small number; lawyers from private sector, coming in – I think it is a better approach.

So, our approach has been legal aid for those who truly need it with public and private partnership, tapping on the excellent pro bono spirit of our lawyers. And should we give it up?

But I will say this. We are also not completely satisfied with the current model. There are some hard questions. How can we better help those who cannot pay for lawyers and yet, make sure that we do not go down the road that other countries have travelled?

Last year, we reached the five-year mark since the enhanced CLAS was announced in 2014. As I said earlier, CLAS was originally initiated in 1985 by the late Mr Harry Elias, together with a group of lawyers, to better help those who could not pay for a lawyer.

In 2015, pursuant to my announcement in 2014, we enhanced CLAS, with the support of the legal profession and we started reviewing the enhanced model last year which is the five-year mark since we made the first announcement. We have been considering different possibilities, including possibly a public defender's office.

CLAS today covers the lowest 25% in terms of household income. Should we expand that number? I am happy to hear from Members. We will consider suggestions seriously.

I should also mention that in 2014, when we announced the enhanced CLAS, some in the legal profession were very concerned that this was going to eat into their rice bowl. There was some disquiet. We received a petition from some lawyers – not that few – about the possible adverse effect of the enhanced CLAS on their work, on their livelihoods.

Then Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and I met some of these concerned members from the criminal bar in 2014. We showed them the figures – that we were not going to take away their work, that we were helping those who could not have gone to them anyway. People need to be helped and that is central to the Government's mission.

Our profession has 781 firms who have between one and five lawyers in the firm. Of these 781, 233 firms practise criminal law. In terms of lawyers, there are about 750 lawyers who practise criminal law. Many depend heavily on the smaller value legal work on criminal cases. We should aim to have a structure that helps those who truly need help but does not become an unacceptable strain on the treasury. For those who can afford to pay for lawyers, the taxpayer should not have to pay for them.

In this context, the public defender's office, assisting together with the means and merits test, seems like a good option. Law Society is in principle supportive of expanding criminal legal aid in order to enhance access to justice. However, the Law Society's council has expressed strong concerns on the impact on paid work, especially for small firms. They had doubts as to whether this proposed expansion that the Government has been discussing with them would so neatly capture Singaporeans who could not afford lawyers' fees. The criminal bar representatives have counter-proposed to expand the coverage of offences, rather than increase the means test coverage.

We will continue discussions and decide.

The primary factor will be, as I have said, to ensure that those who cannot afford lawyers can get access to justice without the situation becoming fiscally difficult for the taxpayer and the Government is discussing but in principle prefers the approach of a public defender's office.

So, the answer to Ms Carrie Tan's question is yes. We have been and we are considering seriously a public defender's office. We will study the details and feasibility of this further in consultation with the Law Society and the criminal bar.