Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill

Minister for Home Affairs.

On behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955 was last extended in 2018 for five years, till 20 October 2024. The Act is a critical piece of legislation for us to deal with egregious criminal activities which threaten the sense of safety and security in Singapore, in particular the activities of gangs and secret societies. This Bill seeks to extend the Act for another five years.

Secret societies have been in Singapore for a long time. In the 1950s, gang activity in Singapore was rampant. Secret societies were involved in illicit activities and used violence to impose fear on the community. Victims and witnesses feared reprisal against themselves and their family members, if they testified against the secret societies. This made prosecution in court extremely difficult.

It was against this backdrop that the Act was introduced. The Act gave the Government levers to deal effectively with the problem. Under the Act, the Minister for Home Affairs may detain, or place under Police supervision, persons associated with activities of a criminal nature. These activities are set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Act and include involvement in a secret society or as a gangster.

These powers are exercised carefully and sparingly. The Minister must be satisfied that detaining a person under the Act is necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The power to detain someone under the Act is used only when prosecution is not viable. For example, because victims and witnesses refuse to testify for fear of reprisal.

We have put in place safeguards in the exercise of these powers. First, the consent of the Public Prosecutor must be obtained for a detention order or supervision order. He must be satisfied that prosecution is not viable, before allowing executive action under the Act.

Second, we have three committees that are independent of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to ensure that detentions are necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order.

The first committee scrutinises every detention and supervision order issued by the Minister. It is chaired by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court and comprises senior and experienced lawyers. It examines the evidence that was considered by the Minister in issuing the order and submits its report to the President to recommend the confirmation, variation or cancellation of the order.

A second committee considers every confirmed detention order at least once annually. It will consider whether the detainee continues to pose a threat to public safety, peace and good order; and whether the detainee should continue to be detained or released.

A third committee reviews detention cases which are being considered for extension beyond 10 years, to determine if continued detention is indeed necessary.

The Act requires the committees to have regard to public safety, the protection of individuals and the safeguarding of sources of information, in their deliberation. They are required to submit a report to the President, who may, on the advice of the Cabinet, confirm, vary or cancel the order made by the Minister.

Third, detainees are required to attend in person before the first committee, when the committee considers the order made by the Minister. Detainees can be represented by lawyers and may make representations to the various committees.

Fourth, every decision made under the Act can be subject to judicial review. This was made clear by the Minister for Home Affairs when the Act was amended in 2018. Sir, I want to emphasise this point as I know that some Members have raised their concerns as to whether the Act ousts judicial review. It does not.

Over the years, the number of detention and supervision orders issued under the Act has declined. From 21 October 2019 to 31 December 2023, 123 persons were dealt with under the Act – 86 Detention Orders (DOs) and 37 Police Supervision Orders (PSOs) were issued. This was fewer than the number of cases in the same period of the previous term of the Act. Even so, the number of orders issued is significant and the Act continues to be necessary and relevant – not only against secret societies, but also other criminal activities, such as unlicensed moneylending.

Gangs and organised crime groups continue to be a big threat to societies globally. These groups are involved in a wide spectrum of criminal conduct, including illegal drugs, scams, money laundering, human trafficking, firearms and vehicle-related crimes.

In the United States (US), gangs and gang-related criminal activities remain prevalent. Gangs there actively recruit new members, have carved out drug distribution territories and collaborate with other criminal groups for power and financial gains. They are well-organised and have significant reach and influence even across the US borders.

In August 2023, the United Nations reported that hundreds of thousands of people are being trafficked by criminal gangs and coerced into working in scam centres and other illegal operations across Southeast Asia. Billions of dollars are made annually by such gangs, who force the victims into crime and subject them to threats, torture and even sexual violence. This is happening at our doorstep.

There is a strong nexus between gang membership and violent crimes. Studies have found that gangs reinforce violent behaviour by routinely exposing gang members to high-risk situations and rewarding them for their violence. Moreover, gang members often see violence as a way to earn respect, status and reputation.

Because of the way gangs operate, witness intimidation in gang trials is a serious concern for many jurisdictions and an obstacle to justice. The true extent of this is impossible to measure, because witness intimidation is often not reported. Gangs have also used technology and social networking sites, such as X formerly known as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, to intimidate witnesses.

In a recent incident in Virginia, US, a member of a street gang intimidated witnesses by posting their names on Instagram and calling for gang members to gather in the court room to “watch the snitches snitching”. As a result, some witnesses pulled out of testifying and the trial had to be postponed.

When criminals, such as gangs and secret societies, cannot be brought to justice for their crimes, then the criminal justice system has failed. Instead of the people feeling protected, a climate of fear envelopes the society. The people lose confidence in the criminal justice system and, ultimately, the state.

As I explained earlier, the Act is used where prosecution is not viable, because witnesses are unwilling to testify in court for fear of reprisal. Witness intimidation is a problem in Singapore too. Some countries have witness relocation and protection programmes. However, because Singapore is so small, witness relocation would not be feasible or effective. Even in big countries, these measures are not always foolproof. Moreover, witness protection programmes take a very heavy toll on the protected witnesses.

They have to change their identity, change their job and cut off contact with families and friends. We should ask ourselves: why should witnesses and victims have to bear heavy personal costs, in bringing secret society members to justice?

In Singapore, there are still active secret societies, although not in the numbers and scale in some other countries. Nevertheless, they are still a menace to law and order, public safety and security. They recruit young Singaporeans, and engage in illicit activities and violent conduct. That is why we must continue to clamp down on them.

I will give you a few recent examples of when we had to use the powers under the Act.

One incident took place on 9 November 2021 at about 4.00 am. Ten gang members gathered at a rival gang member’s flat. They were armed with deadly weapons including a machete, a knuckle duster and a karambit knife. They were there to seek revenge as they believed that a rival gang member had assaulted their "Headman". When they found out that the rival gang member was not at home, they attacked his family members instead. They punched and kicked the person’s parents, brother and sister. The father suffered a facial bone fracture while the mother sustained a forearm fracture. Seven of the gang members were dealt with under the Act.

Another incident took place on 8 January 2022 at about 10.30 pm. There was a gang clash between rival secret societies at Circular Road. During the riot, gang members of one of the secret societies chased and assaulted the rival gang members. The rival gang members were kicked and punched in full view of the public. One gang member used a knife to stab a rival gang member’s leg. Four of the gang members were dealt with under the Act.

In addition to gang-related incidents, the Act is also used against organised crimes such as unlicensed moneylending. In 2019, we used the Act to detain a number of leaders and financiers of an unlicensed moneylending syndicate, which was linked to more than 1,800 cases of harassment of debtors in Singapore.

Without the Act, we would not have been able to do much against them. The victims and witnesses feared reprisal and were not willing to testify. The perpetrators would have been able to carry on with their violence and intimidation with impunity.

Sir, to conclude, we continue to have to use the Act. We cannot be complacent about the safety and security that Singaporeans enjoy today, that we do not live in fear of gangs and secret societies and are not intimidated by them, unlike in many other countries. The Act is an essential tool for the Government to ensure this. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, I wish to declare that I am a lawyer in private practice who has dealt with detention cases under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955. I shall call it "Act".

This Bill represents the 15th time that Parliament is being asked to extend the Act. Given the longevity of this Act, which was enacted almost 70 years ago, the skeptical amongst us may be tempted to say that there is nothing "temporary" about this Act.

I would respectfully suggest, however, that that would be a case of missing the wood for the trees. This Act vests with the Minister for Home Affairs with extraordinary powers to order the detention without trial of a person accused of having association with specified activities of a criminal nature, DO, or subjecting him to a supervision order, or SO. These powers are meant to be used as a matter of last resort because of the difficulty in securing evidence against such persons, as explained by the hon Minister of State; primarily by reason of their association with secret societies.

By design, these powers constitute a derogation from the usual due process accorded to persons accused of crime which will involve the court independently adjudicating on the case after reviewing the evidence. The exception has been justified on the basis of the pernicious nature of secret society operations and the need to preserve public order in Singapore.

As was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, several safeguards have also been worked into the framework as well. So, I would not traverse the same ground save to add that in respect of the Advisory Committees the hon Minister of State mentioned are headed by sitting Judges of the Supreme Court. So, all of them are occupying a high constitutional office.

Notwithstanding the safeguards, given the exceptional nature of the power, however, it is apt that there is a further mechanism built into the Act to allow Parliament to satisfy itself of the continued need to confer on the Minister these powers before deciding to extend the Act.

Hence, the reference to "temporary" in the Act is really a recognition of the fact that these are extraordinary powers requiring the Minister to periodically make a case in Parliament on the reasons for extending the Act to enable him to use the powers. This constitutes responsible politics.

I now turn to the hon Minister of State’s case for extending the Act. As was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, the numbers of detentions have come down. I looked at it: in 2019 it was 97 detention orders issued; 2022, 80 detention orders. For context, these detention numbers were much higher in the 1980s and up to the early 1990s, they were in the four digits and they were in the three digits up to the first decade of the new millennium.

So, it is therefore good news that the numbers have reduced appreciably over the past four decades. The bad news, however, as I note from the hon Minister of State’s speech, is that there continues to be a number of serious secret society clashes that affect the peace and good order of Singapore. What is noteworthy is that prosecution in these cases, as was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, was not viable because witnesses refused to give evidence in court, for fear of reprisal. Such violent acts, should they have gone unpunished, would threaten the peace and security we are accustomed to, and some even take for granted. This, we cannot afford.

In addition, the hon Minister of State refers to a significant number organised criminal activities such as unlicensed moneylending and drug trafficking by secret societies again where witnesses are unwilling to come forward to testify incident in court. Without the decisive action taken under this Act to cripple the syndicates, many more Singaporeans may have fallen victim. So, hence, this Act had the effect of preventing the proliferation of such crime.

Apart from what the hon Minister of State highlighted in this House, I note with concern that it is stated in the Global Organised Crime Index Report on Singapore for 2023 that foreign criminal actors continue to operate in Singapore with and, I quote, "moderate influence", and almost all of them are involved in immigration-related crimes, money laundering and scams, amongst others. I would imagine them to be fairly sophisticated in their criminal activities and it would likely not be easy to get witnesses to spill the beans on them. This brings to my mind what the then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng said in this House in 1994, about the threat of organised crime, particularly Asian triads and gangs, which continues to be real across much of the world today too. Mr Wong stated that the Act served as a deterrence against these overseas triads and gangs from shifting operations into Singapore. To deal with these hardened criminals with sophisticated international networks, we need laws with teeth and muscle. This Act has that those prerequisites.

On balance, I am convinced, based on the hard facts that have been laid out in this House by the hon Minister of State, that it is in the better interest of Singapore that the Act be extended. I therefore support the Bill.

Sir, I would however like to make a case for the Police to do more to prevent youths from being recruited by secret societies. Through my pro bono criminal law practice as well as a two-year involvement in a study of youths at risk for a self-help group, I have noted the tendency for secret societies to recruit youths from a relatively young age: young people are the "oxygen" or life blood for secret societies. Once recruited, the youths become the secret societies' fighters who protect and advance their criminal objectives. As I will be alluding to shortly, if we can starve the secret societies of this "oxygen", we will be able to significantly curb the societies' influence and activities.

In the study that I was involved in, it was noted that the entry age for secret society members ranged from as young as 11 to 18. Once these youths join the secret societies, a number of them would be introduced to alcohol and controlled drugs. They in turn develop violent streaks which the headmen would then use to unleash against rival gangs.

In answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in October 2020, the hon Minister for Home Affairs revealed that the median age of persons subject to DOs and SOs between 2017 and 2019 was only 22. He also stated that the youngest persons subject to these orders were 17. In fact, I was personally involved in a pro bono case where a 17-year-old boy was issued with a DO which was subsequently extended as well.

On the face of it, I would imagine that for some of us, this may be seen as a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, the reality is that, depending on the facts of the case, young people, as part of a gang, can cause serious harm; even death. They pose a danger to themselves too as violence begets violence. Depending on the facts, it may be necessary to invoke the Act to issue either a DO or SO to preserve public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, something we cannot take for granted.

I am aware that the Police does good work to help youths to keep away from the clutches of secret societies. The hon Minister, in his answer to my PQ in 2020 highlighted some of these steps. He said that the Police works with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), Ministry of Education (MOE) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) to develop and implement preventive and rehabilitative initiatives. These initiatives include the Streetwise and Enhanced Streetwise Programmes aimed at providing youths associated with secret societies with counselling.

The Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department also regularly runs Camps ACE, which means "All Can Escape" to educate youths on the perils of joining a secret society and educational talks for parents on tell-tale signs.

However, the secret societies are not keeping still. Through my work in the study, I learnt that secret societies have evolved methods to specifically target and recruit youths in communities and school settings as well. These societies may well double their efforts in an environment where, generally, enrolment in secret societies is falling. The activities usually start off as being rather innocuous social gatherings but lead to initiation ceremonies after which the youths would start being at the beck and call of their respective headmen. I see such recruitment activities as "capacity building" to undertake activities of a criminal nature that are contemplated under the Act. Such acts should equally be viewed as affecting the peace and good order of Singapore too.

I am aware that recruiting persons to join unlawful societies constitute an offence under the Societies Act 1966. Where the Police has secured evidence of recruitment activities, such persons should be prosecuted.

In cases where the evidence on record is not forthcoming, perhaps because of intimidation, I wonder if the powers under the Act can also be invoked against these recruiters. In paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act, which the hon Minister of State quoted, the Minister may use his power to detain a person or subject him to supervision if the person is generally involved in a secret society or as a gangster. This should extend to recruitment activities on behalf of a secret society or gang.

From my research, though, I have not been able to unearth any case where the power of the Minister was invoked to impose a DO or SO against a person for conducting recruitment activities for a secret society per se. So, I seek the hon Minister of State’s clarification and views on this matter.

The final point I wish to make concerns the provisions in Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Act. It is not well known that the Act does not just deal with detention and supervision powers which are set out in Part 5 of the Act. This is not surprising. This is because at almost every Second Reading debate of the Bill to extend the Act, the Government made its case by reference to its report card of the use of powers provided for in Part 5 of the Act; not Parts 2, 3 and 4.

Respectfully, I think the time has come for the Government to consider porting over Parts 2, 3 and 4 to other pieces of legislation and then repealing these Parts in this Act. Such a move would be more in accord with Parliament’s intent when passing this Bill to extend the Act for a further five years.

Going down to some specifics, Part 3 of the Act deals with placing prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of workers to strike and employers to lock-out workmen when they are engaged in "essential services" which is defined in the Act. Such restrictions should not be controversial. The International Labour Organization, of which Singapore is a member of, expressly acknowledged that there may be a prohibition or restriction to the right to strike in essential services. I therefore suggest that the Government consider taking steps to port Part 3 of the Act over to another statute, perhaps the Industrial Relations Act 1960.

Parts 2 and 4 of the Act deal with public safety and public order issues. For instance, in section 4 under Part 2 of the Act, it is provided that any person who has a "subversive document", as defined in the Act, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 13 under Part 4 of the Act provides the power to the Minister and the Police to disperse assemblies which pose an immediate threat to public peace.

I suggest that the Government reviewing these Parts with a view to repeal provisions that may be seen as obsolete or otiose. In the alternative, there may also be a case to port over relevant provisions to the Public Order Act 2009 which is the primary piece of legislation that the Government relies on to regulate and control assemblies to maintain public order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I wish to reiterate the point I make about making it difficult for secret societies to recruit young people.

Young people are not just the life blood of secret societies but of our country too. It is sad that there continues to be cases of youths falling victim to the machinations of secret societies. Each case is a case too many. We should call out the acts of recruiters and bring to bear the full force of the law against them either by prosecution under the Societies Act or through the exercise of the powers under this Act. It is these recruiters who seduce vulnerable and immature young people by making false promises of charmed and privileged lifestyles.

Once our young get snared into the gangs, their future prospects will naturally suffer. Needless to say, their families suffer together with them. Through more resolute action against the recruiters, I believe we will have a far better chance of turning our young people away from dark alleys of crime and violence and instead focus on the flourishing of their own bright futures, for their sake, that of their families as well for Singapore.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, this is the 15th time this so-called temporary Act, in its various forms, has come before Parliament or its predecessor for the renewal of another five years from 21 October 2024. This law puts people behind bars or restricts their movement at the order of the Home Affairs Minister.

Like the Internal Security Act, it is a controversial exception to our legal justice system, which usually requires every person to be charged, tried and convicted in Court before he is imprisoned or fined for his wrongdoing.

Under this Act, the Minister can, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, order the detention of a person for any period not exceeding 12 months, if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary that the person be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The Minister can also make an order for a person to be subject to the supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding three years, if he is satisfied that it is so necessary. Every order shall be referred to an advisory committee, which shall submit its recommendation on the order to the President, who has the power to confirm, cancel or vary the order given.

Taking away someone's liberty either by detention or by restriction of movements and activities should not be taken lightly as they impact on liberty and freedom. Time limits for detention and supervision should also be viewed from the perspective that each order can be reviewed annually with the agreement of the President and that the recommendation of an advisory committee and on the advice of the Cabinet.

Mr Speaker, in past renewals of the Act, there were Members who have spoken up about their concerns about the undesirable aspects of the Act and have asked the Government when we can finally do away with this Act. I am glad that we are here today to debate the extension of the Act for another five years and not more than that. In the past, some Members have even suggested that the Bill should not be a temporary one but should be converted to a permanent one. I certainly cannot agree with that.

Many Members have, over the years, also spoken in agreement with the Minister of the day on variously the rationale for extending the Act to deal with the concerned crimes or criminal groups of the day. I read from Ministers' and Members' speeches in the Hansard that this ranged from secret societies, gangsterism, drug trafficking, murders, extortion and protection records to, in more recent years, money laundering, loan-shark syndicates, organised crimes and global match-fixing. There was also mention of arguably activities which are traditionally not regarded as criminal, such as prevention of strikes and lockouts, as well as communist domination.

The Minister of State has also highlighted some of the recent serious cases in the past five years which required enforcement under CLTPA. I would like to ask the Minister of State of the types of cases highlighted, what is the number of detention and supervision orders granted for such type of crimes over the total number of all CLTPA orders in the last five years?

I would also like to ask the Minister of State, in the last five years, since October 2019, what is the total number of people who, one, have been detained under the CLTPA and two, have been subject to Police supervision under the CLTPA? Can the Minister of State give a breakdown of the number of persons subject to CLTPA orders, organised according to the different category of criminal activities? Can the Minister of State tell this House of the persons who have been detained in the course of the last five years, what is the proportion of detainees who have served more than two years and how many of the current detainees have been in detention for more than five and 10 years respectively?

I would also like to ask the Minister of State, in the past five years, whether there were instances when the public prosecutor actually withheld consent or raised concerns when the Minister sought to make an order.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party objected to some of the amendments which the Government sought to introduce in 2018, together with a five-year extension from 2019 to 2024. Among other things, in 2018, the Workers' Party had expressed concern with the finality clause in the amended section 30 of the present Act under the then clause 3 of the Amendment Bill, which made the decisions of the Minister on detention and supervision to be final, the insertion of the Fourth Schedule which may allow Minister to bypass answering questions, such as whether a case is serious enough to justify detention, or why it is not possible to prosecute these persons in Court and also expanding the Minister's powers to police criminal activities overseas.

In today's Second Reading, the Government is asking for a five-year extension of the Act and no amendment of the current Act is being proposed. I confirm that the Workers' Party objections and reservations to some of the amendments raised in 2018 remain. However, we are in cautious support for the proposed five-year extension today, subject to the Government's explanation for the Authority's use of the CLTPA in the past five years and justifications for an extension of a further five years.

Mr Speaker, as the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim had articulated in the 2018 debate about the Workers' Party's support for renewals of the Act prior to 2018, she said that the Workers' Party has accepted the uncomfortable compromise that this law entails on the constitutional rights to freedom and that we did not delight in taking such a position but did so with a heavy heart.

Mr Speaker, in 2018, the Minister, in justifying for an extension of the Act in the Second Reading speech, raised examples of CLTPA being used against gangs, unlicensed moneylenders, drug syndicates and global match-fixing syndicates in the years before that. He mentioned of victims being unwilling or unable to identify attackers. He also mentioned of victims or drug couriers unwilling to testify in Court for fear of reprisals.

The Minister also mentioned that while the drug situation was under control, the challenges had remained significant. In the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) press release dated 7 March 2024, in respect of the First Reading of today's Bill, it was stated that the Act is, I quote, "an essential legal instrument for the Police so that they can act effectively against secret societies and criminal syndicates, such as moneylending and drug-trafficking syndicates, where prosecution is not viable because witnesses are unwilling to testify in open Court for fear of reprisal."

MHA stated that since 2019, the Act has been used to detain or place under supervision persons heavily involved in secret society activities and leaders of organised crime syndicates, such as an overseas licensed moneylending syndicate. The same release also provided four recent cases of CLTPA recent enforcement, all involving gangs and witnesses refusing to give evidence for fear of reprisal. The Minister of State has also briefly touched on this in his speech. Indeed, the scenario shared by the Minister then and the Minister of State today are not new and CLTPA has been used in such cases relating to crime and drug syndicates and gangs for a long time and they would often involve fear of witnesses testifying in Court for fear of reprisals.

Looking at the explanations given and the cases mentioned by the Minister in the recent Second Reading speeches, I do wonder whether the Government will require further extensions of the Act as long as criminal activities, such as gangs, drug and crime syndicates, unlicensed moneylending and so on, continue to persist, especially coupled with possible intimidation of witnesses.

I would like to ask whether MHA has also looked at other crime control or enforcement methods or models to deal with the specified criminal activities of gangs, drugs and crime syndicates and unlicensed moneylending and to work around witness intimidation issues. How has Singapore Police Force (SPF) utilised the technological advances and deployment of technology in the Police Force, for example, use of cameras at an unprecedented scale these days to keep these crimes problems under control? Indeed, with the increased use of technology by our SPF and also the development of SPF over the years, will advances in our policing methods as well as technological advances help to control the age-old problems of gangs and crime syndicates and mitigate against the age-old problem of witnesses not coming forth to testify?

Mr Speaker, even as the crime situation in Singapore may have been evolving and still does, it is difficult to deny that we have come very far in our crime situation since almost 70 years ago when this temporary Act was first introduced. In recent years, we have also received assurances from Minister that the number of detainees under the CLTPA have been declining. As we review the need for a renewal of the CLTPA today, for the next five years, I would therefore like to ask the Minister of State what would be the conditions or goals, the attainment of which may grant confidence to our Government to consider not seeking further extensions in future.

Over time, other Members have also asked the question essentially of when we will be ready to do away with the Act. The current Minister of Home Affairs has asked a similar question even back in 1989. The then Home Affairs Minister answered as follows, and I quote, "Mr Shanmugam asked: when can we do away with it? My answer to that would be, we can do away with it when we are satisfied that both the secret society component of our objective and the drug traffic component of our objective are reduced to such small proportions that we can safely say that we do not need this to control both aspects." The Minister then went on to elaborate on his views.

Almost 35 years on, I look forward to the current Minister's answer and update. Mr Speaker, subject to the replies to the questions and clarifications to my queries and concerns, the Workers' Party supports the extension of the Act.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to extend the operation of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, or CLPTA, for another five years, starting from 21 October 2024. This extension is not to be taken lightly because it continues to empower the Government to detain individuals without trial.

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill was first introduced in Parliament back in 1955, as one of the measures to counter the communist threat in Singapore. However, the most concerning part of the Act, namely the section empowering the Minister to direct a person to be detained without trial, was introduced in 1958 to deal with gangsterism.

During the Second Reading of that amendment Bill, the Chief Secretary then, Mr EB David said, “It is only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness, which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use. No democratic government will lightly curtail the liberty of any individual by executive action, nor would it wish to curtail that liberty for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. With the slowly increasing mutual confidence between the police and the public, I sincerely hope that it would not be very long before the conditions in which these gangsters can flourish will no longer obtain. The normal processes of law will, once more, be adequate to detect and punish crimes and these special powers can be thankfully surrendered.”

This Act was enacted in 1955 and if it is renewed this time, it would be its 15th renewal. Sixty-six years have passed since the introduction of the provision empowering the Executive to detain criminals without trial. While gangsterism still exists today in Singapore, the extent of lawlessness is, we believe, not as rampant as it was back in 1958 when the executive power to detain without trial was introduced. The most important question which we face today in this House is whether the Act is still relevant, and more importantly, necessary in light of our present circumstances.

This consideration must include other pieces of criminal legislation in force and the sufficiency and efficacy of our judicial system. A balance has to be struck between personal liberty and public peace and order. Have we struck the right balance with this proposed extension?

As such, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) would like to seek several clarifications from the Minister.

One, does the Ministry intend to continually renew this piece of legislation for as long as crime in Singapore is not completely eradicated? Otherwise, can the Ministry share with this House under what circumstances it is prepared to do away with this piece of legislation, which was intended to be temporary when it was first enacted in 1955?

Two, can the Ministry update this House regarding the steps it has taken over the years to review if our current judicial system can be strengthened to better deal with crimes of the nature that this Act is currently invoked for, without having to detain persons without trial?

Three, can the Minister clarify whether the Public Defender's Office is authorised to represent detainees under the Act to guarantee their access to counsel?

Mr Speaker, PSP recognises that the CLTPA does play a part in bringing greater safety and security to law-abiding citizens. However, as the powers given to the Government under the CLTPA is so draconian, PSP is of the view that equally strong safeguards must be put in place to protect innocent Singaporeans against any potential abuse of these powers. We, therefore, propose to enhance the protections against possible abuse with three recommendations.

The PSP's first proposed safeguard is to legislatively require that sitting Supreme Court Judges sit on the Advisory Committees. While we note that Minister Shanmugam said in 2018 that Advisory Committees will be chaired by sitting judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Government stopped short of codifying this change. The PSP is of the view that we must codify this requirement to uphold the separation of powers, provide greater clarity for all and strengthen the perception that the Advisory Committees are independent. We believe that there is no downside to this.

The PSP's second proposed safeguard relates to the making of DOs and PSO. Besides the Public Prosecutor's consent, the Minister must also seek either: one, the Advisory Committee’s concurrence; or two, the concurrence of the President, acting in his discretion, before the DO or PSO is made.

The PSP's third proposed safeguard relates to the extension of DOs or PSOs. If an Advisory Committee objects to the extension of the DO or PSO and the Government disagrees, any extension should only be granted with the President's concurrence, acting in his discretion.

The reason why we are proposing the second and third safeguards is because the ultimate decision-maker, currently, is still Cabinet. While the Minister must hear the Advisory Committee's views and recommendations via its written report to the President, the Minister does not need to follow those recommendations before making or renewing the DO or PSO, since the President does not have discretionary powers under the CLTPA and must follow Cabinet's recommendations.

The PSP believes that these three proposals will strike the appropriate balance between personal liberty and public peace and order.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we would like to stress that the PSP does not for any moment take for granted the benefits that Singaporeans enjoy from our peace and order. We also recognise the CLTPA's role in keeping Singapore safe.

However, we also recognise that our circumstances have changed substantially since the enactment of the CLTPA in the 1950s and that detention without trial must always be considered with utmost caution and reluctance. We should also clarify our laws and codify the current practices that are already in place.

In light of these considerations, the PSP will oppose the extension of the CLTPA, unless the safeguards are enhanced. Thank you. For country, for people.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting. I will take the Chair at 3.30 pm. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.10 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Louis Ng.

This Bill will renew the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for the 15th time. When I last spoke on the Bill to renew the CLTPA, I said that the title of the Bill belies the fact that the Act is far from temporary.

The debate that we are having today on extending the CLPTA is an important safeguard. This ensures that there is Parliamentary scrutiny on the continuing need for the Executive’s exceptional powers under the CLPTA. While I understand the continuing public order and security pressures that justify the exercise of these powers, we should never forget the extraordinary nature of the CLTPA. The grounds for the Act and the powers under the CLPTA should be closely examined every time the Act comes up for renewal.

I have four points for clarification. My first point is on the obligations imposed on persons subject to Police Supervision Orders under section 33. In the previous amendment, the obligations on a person subject to a Police Supervision Order were moved into subsidiary legislation. The obligations are now set out under rules that the Minister can make under section 49. Minister shared that the rationale for doing so was to allow the obligations, which are operational in nature, to be amended based on evolving needs. Can the Minister of State share the nature of these obligations that have been introduced in the rules? How frequently are the obligations reviewed and how have they evolved since the previous amendment to the Act?

My second point is on the composition and processes of the Advisory Committees. The Advisory Committees are an important check on the broad powers under the Act. There are three types of Advisory Committees: the first to review every Detention Order (DO) and Police Supervision Order (PSO); the second to review every detainee’s case at least once annually; and the third to review detention cases for extension beyond 10 years. The Advisory Committee, which reviews DOs and PSOs, is chaired by a Judge of the Supreme Court. Its members are senior lawyers and respected members of society, such as Justices of the Peace. The Advisory Committee will consider all materials that the Minister relied on in issuing the DO or PSO.

The compositions of the other two types of Advisory Committees are not as clear. Can the Minister of State share the composition of the other two Advisory Committees which review existing detainees’ cases at least once annually and for extension beyond 10 years?

As these two Advisory Committees must consider the detainee’s suitability and readiness for release, can Minister share whether there are professionals on the Advisory Committees who have the relevant expertise? For instance, the Advisory Committee may have to take a view on the detainee’s psychological state or receptiveness to rehabilitation. Additionally, section 40(3) also requires the Advisory Committees to consider the requirements of public safety, the protection of individuals and the safeguarding of sources of information. Can the Minister of State share what materials are provided to the two Advisory Committees that review existing detainees’ cases to enable them to consider all these factors? Can the Minister of State also share whether the two Advisory Committees that review existing detainees’ cases regularly exercise their powers under section 40 to summon and examine witnesses, and to compel the production of documents?

My third point is on the support of individuals subjected to DOs and PSOs. The Ministry has stated that DOs and PSOs are intended to “break the vicious cycle of gang lawlessness and the climate of terror they instilled”. In order to break this vicious cycle, can the Minister of State share what programmes are in place for individuals subject to DOs and PSOs to reduce the need for the DOs or PSOs to be extended? Can the Minister of State also share the recidivism rate of individuals subject to DOs and PSOs?

My fourth and final point is on witness protection. I suggested in my speech on the previous amendments to the Act that the Ministry should study other solutions for securing witness testimony to reduce the need for the CLTPA powers. The Minister of State shared that the suggestions considered were not workable because it is difficult to have secret testimony from one witness who cannot be cross-examined in the trial process. However, the Minister of State also said that the Ministry will review other options for securing witness testimonies. Can the Minister of State provide an update on its review and options that were considered?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill seeks to extend the operation of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for another five years. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which I will now refer to simply as "the Act", has been in place since 1955, and contains several provisions relating to public safety and security in Singapore.

Specifically, the Act allows the Minister for Home Affairs to authorise the detention without trial of someone suspected of being involved in, or with, certain crimes, including drug trafficking, homicide, gang rape, armed robbery, syndicated crime organisations, illegal money lending and people trafficking.

The Act also gives police the authority to arrest and detain a person without a warrant, restricts the manufacture and possession of documents considered to be subversive and restricts strikes and lock-outs that might disrupt or prevent the delivery of essential services.

Mr Deputy Speaker, several of these provisions raise concerns related to due process, the separation of powers, and the role and authority of the Executive. These issues are important, and need to be acknowledged and seriously considered prior to approval of this Bill; and I will now make some additional comments intended to assist these considerations.

Before I do so, I would like to note that I am currently Head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we first need to ask ourselves whether there remains a need for the Act. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955 was initially intended to combat crimes, notably violent conflicts, between gangs and secret societies, and to ensure the uninterrupted provision of essential services. The criminal landscape in Singapore has, however, changed and Singapore now ranks as one of the safest countries in the world. We also now have an independent and impartial judiciary, highly trained and respected police and security forces, and a population that is known around the world as being law abiding and civic minded.

Why then, do we need such powers as contained in the Act? Mr Deputy Speaker, the answer is quite simple and is related in the comment that is frequently made about Singapore: low crime does not mean no crime. While crime rates across Singapore remain admirably low by international standards, we continue to face the threat of national and transnational crime that is increasingly sophisticated, complex and elusive, and can have far reaching consequences on the personal and economic safety and wellbeing of individual citizens and the nation as a whole.

Additionally, our low crimes rates do not just spontaneously happen. They are the result of the coordinated and continual efforts of many hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans who work often invisibly every day to keep us safe, and who are backed up by legislation that gives them the authority and confidence to do what they need to do.

As Thomas Jefferson famously said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", and while this Act may curtail or impede certain individual rights and freedoms, it does assist to guarantee the collective freedom and well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans – something many of us take for granted every day and would complain loudly about if it was to vanish.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we also need to look at the unique geographical and socio-cultural nature of Singapore. In comparison to almost all other countries, Singapore is tiny, with a population density that is third highest in the world.

The impact of crime in Singapore is not the same as that in other countries. If our crime rates increase, they cannot be hidden or distributed across large geographical areas, or within dispersed population groups. An escalation in crime in Singapore will literally, be in our face, and the impact of that crime on the efficiency, cooperation, and trust that drives Singapore could be catastrophic on our society, our economy, and our reputation as a uniquely safe place to live, work and invest.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is easy to say that we do not need the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955. However the price we may pay if we remove it may not be a price Singaporeans or Singapore is prepared to pay. Mr Deputy Speaker, we do, however, have to do more to educate the public about this Act.

There is considerable and understandable concern among some Singaporeans about an Act that allows the Executive to authorise the detention of a person for up to 12 months without trial, with some people potentially thinking that we are arbitrarily detaining people for no good reason. To counter these misconceptions, it might be helpful for the Government to run a public education campaign about how and when the provisions in the Act are applied, and the checks and balances that exist within our systems to ensure that the provisions are applied transparently and appropriately and only ever as a last resort.

It may also be helpful to remind the public that those who are detained are able to seek legal advice and appeal to the relevant Advisory Committee or Courts. Other information that should routinely be made available to the public includes the number of people detained per year, and the reason for their detention; the age and sex of the detainees; the number of detention orders confirmed, cancelled, or extended by the President every year; the number of people on day release to attend employment; and, the number of successful and unsuccessful appeals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if we are to confidently extend this Act for another five years, we all need to be in a position to openly describe and defend the Act, and the circumstances surrounding its use.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the primary justifications for detention under the Act is the unavailability of witnesses willing or able to testify, thereby making successful prosecution in the courts unlikely. I appreciate the challenges explained by the hon Minister of State earlier. However, if more could be done to reassure witnesses that their identity and safety is guaranteed, then perhaps more of these cases could be successfully prosecuted through our regular court system.

Likewise, if another justification for detention under the Act is the difficulty in obtaining reliable evidence, I would also welcome clarification about the existence and use of confidential disclosure or whistleblowing schemes. If more people were able to easily and confidentially provide evidence to the authorities, then perhaps they would be more willing and able to submit, or even leak relevant information. These suggestions may be of particular relevance in those matters involving organised crime syndicates or gangs, or where witnesses or evidence may not be based in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now make some comments about rehabilitation and reintegration.

Detention serves two purposes. First, it removes the opportunity for offenders to commit further crimes, and, of equal, if not more, importance, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate offenders so as to facilitate successful reintegration into society.

In light of the above, I would welcome clarification that those detained under this Act are housed in the same prison facilities as those sentenced through the regular court system, and have access to the same rehabilitation and reintegration services and programmes. I would also welcome clarification about the number of people who have been detained under the Act who have subsequently reoffended post release, and how these recidivism rates compare to the general prison population. That is, as well as initially removing these alleged offenders from society, are they also being successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated back into the community.

Related to this issue is the gang membership. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the majority of people detained under the Act are detained for gang-related activity. If this is the case, and gang related activity remains a primary reason for detention, I would welcome clarification about whether those detained under the Act have access to programmes specifically targeting issues surrounding gang membership.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while not all gangs, or gang members, are involved in criminal activity, in Singapore there remains a high corelation between gangs and crime. In fact, according to Singapore Prison Services, close to one quarter of the inmates who entered prison in 2021 had gang affiliations. This is a major issue of concern, and we need to examine and address why so many people in Singapore, including young people, still feel the need to join or be affiliated with a gang.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would welcome clarification about programmes that specifically target issues surrounding gang membership among young people in the community. If we can intervene early in the lives of young people and provide them with access to more constructive and positive social networking options, we could perhaps start to break the ongoing cycle of gang related crime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill. In an ideal world, there would be no need for this Act, however while national and international crime continues to pose an identifiable threat to one of the defining characteristics of Singapore, our safety and security, the need for this Act remains. It is, however, beholden on us, as Members of Parliament, to ensure that this Act continues to be used in a responsible and accountable manner and only as a last resort.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, allow me to declare my interest as a practising lawyer who sometimes practices criminal law, and I have previously represented a detainee who was detained under this law and I appeared before an Advisory Committee.

Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted on 21 October 1955. It is a unique sunset clause, which states that the law continues in force for period of five years. This means that the law will lapse at the end of five years, unless it is renewed by Parliament at today's Second Reading.

The Act has been extended 14 times, the last being in 2018. The arguments for retaining this Bill in our statutes have been put forth and debated on many, many occasions in this House.

The essence of this law is that allows the Minister to detain a person who has been associated with activities of a criminal nature, without having to charge that person or bring him to trial, if the Minister is satisfied that the detention is an interest of public safety, peace and good order. The Minister also has similar powers to order a person to be subject to a supervision of the Police. And in this Act, activities of a criminal nature means any activity specified in the fourth schedule.

In previous debates, the Minister for Home Affairs had listed the situations when the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was applied, firstly, against gang-related criminal activities; second, against drug traffickers; third, against unlicensed money lenders; and fourth, against members of syndicates, for example, global match-fixing syndicates.

A more comprehensive list of the activities of a criminal nature are listed in the fourth schedule of the Act. Sir, as a practising lawyer, I am reluctant to deviate from this legal principle that every accused person is entitled to confront his accuser, and to defend himself in a fair and public trial.

It is an important principle, as it prevents the abuse of process by an incompetent or corrupt Government. However, I accept that the argument that this law is needed in unique circumstances, where witnesses are unwilling to testify because of the fear of harm to themselves or to their loved ones.

Indeed, when this Bill was up for renewal in 2009, I had supported the renewal of the Bill and at that session, I had given an account of a criminal case that I did in 1990, when I was asked to interview a secret society member who was charged in Court for murder.

However, 15 years later, the question before Members of this House is whether the current state of criminal activities in Singapore would still warrant renewal of the Act, after almost 70 years since the Act was first introduced. Is this law still relevant to Singapore, in this day and age? Is it still necessary in maintaining law and order?

For most Members of this House, we have limited knowledge of the state of criminal activities, save for what was reported in the media or by the Police.

For example, in February 2021, Minister for Home Affairs Mr Shanmugam, in reply to a PQ, said that the secret society situation in Singapore is under control. Minister further said that an average of 112 rioting and serious hurt cases have been linked to secret societies in Singapore each year, for the past five years, and cases involving the use of weapons, such as parangs and knuckle dusters have declined over that same period. He said there was one case involving weapons last year, down from 12 in 2016.

On 5 July 2021, the Minister said in a reply to another PQ, that notwithstanding that the secret society situation remains under control, the participation of youths in secret societies remain a concern. That is why we invest significant resources to educate and engage youths, to deter them from joining secret societies.

For illegal loan shark activities, in an October 2020 reply to a PQ, Minister Shanmugam said that between April and August 2020, there were 1,587 cases of unlicensed moneylending and unlicensed moneylending-related harassment reported. And this was a 40% decrease, from the 2,642 cases reported during the same period in 2019.

Next, for drug related offences, in a 2022 Committee of Supply debate, the Minister informed this House that in the 1990s, the Central Narcotics Bureau arrested about 6,000 abusers per year. Now, they arrest about 3,000 to 3,500 per year. Furthermore, the death penalty is a key part of our system and approach to deal with drug traffickers.

Thus the question is, if the secret society situation in Singapore is under control, if the cases involving unlicensed moneylending has come down by 40%, if the number of drugs abusers have also come down drastically since the 1990s, is there still justification for this law to be extended?

Sir, I listened carefully to the cases of secret society attacks by Minister of State, Mr Faishal Ibrahim. However, in every criminal case, there will always be a risk of retribution, whether by secret society members or by simple criminals.

The question is, how can we balance the interests of an individual, to the right of due process, versus the right of members of public, to a peaceful and safe living environment in Singapore?

Sir, I have always been proud of the fact that Singapore is ranked one of the safest places in Asia to visit. According to the Global Peace Index, the safest Asian country to visit is Singapore, followed by Japan and Malaysia. It was reported that this countries have low levels of violence, crime and conflict, and high levels of stability and security.

The country that tops the list of safest countries in the world, not just in Asia. So, the country that tops the list of safest countries in the world in 2024, is Iceland, followed by Denmark, Austria and New Zealand.

So, my question to the Minister of State is whether these countries also have similar legislation that allows them to detain criminals without trial? How did they maintain their record of being safe countries to visit? And how did they deal with the criminal activities that Singapore is so concerned with?

Sir, I submit that is incumbent of the Government to explain to Parliament, what is the rationale for keeping this law, so that Members can make a considered decision, whether to extend the same for another five years, and that is the purpose of the sunset clause.

If the Minister is able to make out a compelling case, then I will be happy to support the extension. To me, and I reiterate, that this is all about striking the right balance between having the right to due process versus the need to maintain law and order in Singapore.

Sir, allow me to also state for the record that I am quite satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that there is no abuse of power by the Police. I perused the Hansard in respect of the 2018 debate on extension of this law and having read about our six safeguards listed by the Minister for Home Affairs, I am sufficiently convinced that we do have a robust process, to ensure that any decision made by the Minister to detain a person without trial, is carefully scrutinised and assessed.

In particular, I am of the view that having the consent of the public prosecutor before the making of a detention order is an important requirement. The Public Prosecutor, who is also the Attorney-General, enjoys security of tenure under the Constitution, and the public prosecutor is free to disagree with the Police, or even a Minister, and still enjoys the security of tenure.

The next safeguard is having sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore chair the advisory committee, and that is another key factor that persuaded me, that any person detained under this law, where the sufficient safeguards to ensure that there is a strong basis for the detention order. We are having the best judicial minds, reviewing the Minister's basis for the detention or supervision order, and challenging the decision of the Police in requesting for such detention or supervision order.

And these orders will be reviewed annually, by different advisory committees, which will be chaired by different Supreme Court Judges. And the final safeguard that I am satisfied with is the fact that Parliament has to review the necessity of this law every five years, due to the expiry date or the sunset clause of this law.

Sir, I await to hear the justifications to be given by the Minister for Home Affairs for the extension of this law for the 15th occasion.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the enactment of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1955, it has proven itself essential and effective in empowering the Police to act against crime syndicates and secret societies. The prosecution of their cases is challenging, due to reasons, such as reluctant witnesses.

In fact, I believe a lot of my Parliamentary colleagues in this House would have similar experiences with their residents, who are willing to provide information, but request to not disclose their identity, out of fear and for their safety.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

In the interests of good public order, safety and security, this legal instrument must be availed to our Police force. The extension has become even more necessary in view of recent developments. The INTERPOL has been warning all its member countries about the urgent need to combat the scourge of organised crime, which is "at risk of spreading at an epidemic level". Crime syndicates are forming alliances across borders and developing into international groups. The offences spelled out in the Act – drug trafficking, kidnapping, organised crime, unlicensed moneylending and secret society activities – in fact, are among the most common crimes committed by such syndicates.

Our zero tolerance of such criminal activities, and our commitment to eradicating them, have made us one of the safest countries in the world. In fact, as shared by my colleague, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, he had mentioned that we are one of the safest countries in Asia. Last year, the GPI ranked Singapore the sixth safest country globally. Our dedication to public safety has allowed Singaporeans and residents to live in a secure environment and enabled us to attract investors, tourists and event organisers. In fact, some of my residents and friends who visit Singapore, have told me that they feel secure, even when their children wake up early in the morning and wait for the school bus at the bus stop by themselves. This is something that we feel very proud of.

A survey by YouGov, reported in January last year, found that our Government's performance in the category of law and order was the most highly rated, with 77% giving the assessment of "good" or "excellent". It is a delicate balance, I agree, to strike between upholding individual rights and enhancing societal safety and security. Our criminal justice system seeks to balance the interests and protection of the individual, with the welfare of the general community.

I am satisfied that the safeguards put in place are sufficient, as mentioned by my fellow Parliamentary colleagues, including the requirement of the public prosecutor's consent before any DO or PSO is introduced. Detainees are informed of the grounds of their detention and have access to legal counsel. Furthermore, the DO and PSO must also be reviewed by an independent committee. The present system of periodic review by an advisory committee with assessments by professionals has, in fact, been working well.

Sir, as an open economy and an international hub, Singapore must maintain the highest levels of law and order, not just for the protection of our people and our guests, but also as a basic requirement for our nation to survive and thrive in this competitive and increasingly perilous and volatile world. I wholeheartedly support the extension of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for another five more years.

Minister of State Faishal.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments, suggestions and strong support for the Bill. Please allow me to address some points they have raised.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked if we still require the Act for the maintenance of law and order in today's Singapore, given that crimes involving drugs, unlicensed moneylending and secret societies are now under control. I have explained this in my opening speech. The Act has been an integral part of our arsenal and complements our existing laws. We must not be complacent, even if the secret society situation in Singapore is under control.

Mr Lim also asked about other countries in the world which have topped the Global Peace Index and wondered if they have similar legislation as ours. I must emphasise that our laws are unique to our background and our circumstances. I have explained how the powers under the Act came about, and how the Act has served us well in maintaining public safety, peace and good order. We have studied the gang situation in other countries that do not have a similar legislation.

For instance, New Zealand continues to be plagued by gangs and gang-related crimes. The Economist reported that New Zealand had one of the world's highest gang membership rates in 2018. New Zealand has also seen a 75% increase in the number of youths aged from 18 to 25 years old, joining gangs between 2017 and 2022.

Without the Act, we face a real risk of an uncontrolled gang situation and a rise in violent and other serious crimes. We cannot afford to have this in Singapore.

Mr Dennis Tan has asked for various statistics on how the Act has been used in the past. MHA does not generally release information about the use of the Act as we need to balance the call for transparency against the need to prevent prejudice to investigations and to keep witnesses safe. That said, the Singapore Prisons Service (SPS) publishes statistics on detainees annually and I would refer Mr Tan to those annual statistics.

I have also stated, in my opening speech, that 123 persons were dealt with under the Act from 21 October 2019 to 31 December 2023. This comprised 86 DOs and 37 PSOs. There are currently no detainees who have been detained for more than 10 years.

Mr Tan also asked about the use of technology in Police enforcement methods. In this regard, the use of Police cameras has greatly assisted the Police's enforcement efforts, especially in unlicensed moneylending cases. The Police will continue to leverage technology as a key strategy in its enforcement approach. However, as we have emphasised, the Act is an instrument of last resort.

Mr Murali Pillai and Assoc Prof Razwana raised concerns on the involvement of youths in secret societies and asked if the Police could take more preventive measures. Mr Murali also asked if powers of detention could be used on recruiters of secret society members, who are not personally involved in violent activities.

I will first say that we share the same concerns about youths' involvement in gangs and agree that their recruitment into secret societies must be taken seriously. The Police adopts a two-pronged strategy of enforcement and prevention to address the problem of street gangs, particularly among youths. Besides taking firm enforcement actions, Police routinely conduct community outreach programmes and work with key partners to implement a range of diversionary and rehabilitative initiatives to educate the public on the dangers of joining gangs; and to discourage, deter and detect youth involvement in gangs. Some of these partners include other Government agencies, such as MSF, MOE and Social Service Agencies such as Family Service Centres. The Police's educational efforts include organising talks at schools, arranging prison visits for wayward youths, their parents and guardians and promoting programmes, like the Streetwise Programme. We hope that these programmes will raise awareness and prevent youths from becoming involved in gang activities.

When it comes to enforcement, the Ministry views recruitment of youths into gangs as particularly aggravating as this perpetuates the gangland lawlessness, while corrupting our youths. DOs have been and will continue to be issued against recruiters.

I will now address questions raised by Members relating to the operational aspects of the Act.

Mr Ng asked about the nature of obligations imposed on a supervisee, who is under a PSO. The obligations that Minister may impose can be found in Rule 3 of the Criminal Law (Obligations on Person Subject to Supervision) Rules 2018. These obligations include requiring the supervisee to reside at a specified place, curfews; restrictions on where a supervisee may enter, restrictions on who the supervisee may communicate with, amongst others. The Rules were made in December 2018. We review the Rules and obligations from time to time, to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.

Mr Ng also raised a few queries concerning the second and third types of Advisory Committees that review detention cases at least annually. These two Advisory Committees comprise senior lawyers and prominent private citizens with extensive relevant experience and knowledge in areas, such as the criminal justice system and rehabilitation of ex-convicts.

As to Mr Ng's question on what support is provided to these two Advisory Committees to aid them in reviewing existing DOs, they have access to all relevant information including: first, the nature and gravity of offences committed; second, the detainee’s criminal antecedents; third, the detainee's conduct and response towards Prisons' rehabilitation programme; fourth, the detainee’s likelihood of re-offending and continuing to pose a threat to safety and security; and last, the detainee's re-integration plans.

As Mr Gan Thiam Poh has rightly pointed out, this system of Advisory Committees being supported by professionals has worked well.

Mr Ng also asked whether these two Advisory Committees have exercised their powers under section 40 of the Act to summon and examine a witness, or to compel the production of documents. The Advisory Committees assess each case on its own merits, and exercise their powers under section 40 of the Act to summon and examine a witness, if they deem it necessary.

Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested additional safeguards to the Act. We note all that he said. The current safeguards are carefully considered and we have explained several times why this structure works for us. We have explained why MHA, acting with the Minister and with the advisory structures, is the best structure and has kept law and order. It seems that they are not able to point to any abuse of the system – Singapore is ranked number one in law and order.

I think what is key, is let us stop pursuing theory and just ask whether it has worked or has not worked for us. If it has worked and there are no obvious flaws then we must ask, what we are trying to change.

On the issue of the President: the responsibility for law and order lies with the Government, not the President. The President is there in specific respects, as identified in the Constitution. Beyond that, the President has no executive power, and if something goes wrong with law and order, it is the Government that is accountable to the people. We have an Executive that answers to Parliament. In specific circumstances, the President has powers to veto, but law and order is an Executive responsibility, not the President's responsibility. Therefore, we did not agree with this suggestion.

As for Mr Leong's question, as to whether the Public Defender's Office will extend aid to detainees, detainees are currently not assigned counsel by the state. However, they may choose to be represented by any lawyer of their choice or seek pro bono representation under schemes that may be available to them.

I now turn to Mr Ng and Assoc Prof Razwana's queries regarding the rehabilitative aspects of the detention regime, in particular, the programmes that are in place for detainees while in Prison. Detainees are housed in the various institutions in Changi Prison Complex, based on their security risks and rehabilitative needs.

Prison works closely with every detainee to understand each detainee's rehabilitative needs, before placing them on programmes to target specific behavioural and offending needs. Prison engages different agencies to provide a range of programmes to detainees. For instance, Prison collaborates with Yellow Ribbon Singapore to provide detainees with work opportunities. Detainees are also given access to vocational training, religious counselling and education. Where required, detainees undergo the gang renunciation programme or psychological-based correctional programmes to increase their self-awareness and equip them with pro-social skills to change their offending ways.

Family support is also important in a detainee's rehabilitation journey. As such, detainees are encouraged to maintain a close relationship with their family members through letters and visits. Prison also engages specialised family services agencies to deliver structured family programmes that seek to address transitional issues for detainees and their families, with the view of helping detainees build skills and confidence to maintain ties and build stronger relationships with their family members.

Assoc Prof Razwana asked about the recidivism rate of detainees, as compared to that of the general prison population. With respect, it is not meaningful to make such a comparison, as the two regimes are complementary to each other. For instance, an individual may be detained on one occasion and be prosecuted in Court for other offences. The point I want to make is that Prison takes the rehabilitation of every detainee seriously – each detainee undergoes programmes customised to his profile and needs.

I now turn to the final issue, as raised by Mr Murali. He also asked about the relevance of Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Act; and whether these provisions should be ported over to other legislation. MHA is certainly cognisant that the Act consists of these provisions and had, in the course of preparing for this Bill, satisfied ourselves that they remain relevant and necessary. We will continue to review these provisions and propose changes, if necessary.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, for the reasons encompassed in both my speeches, the renewal of the Act is necessary and the Act remains relevant today.

And I want to also mention about a quote, where Mr Dennis Tan has quoted the Minister for Home Affairs in 1989, and has asked when the Government would be ready to do away with the Act. Mr Leong Mun Wai also touched on this. We have to recognise that each time the Act comes up for renewal, we must allow the Government of the day to consider the circumstances and current conditions; and come to the assessment of what is in the best interest of Singapore. We should not bind future governments in its assessment.

The powers under the Act will ensure the continued safeguard of the public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. Once again, I thank Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Are there clarifications? Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for his answers to my questions. I think the Minister of State actually mentioned that some of these information that I have sought, he said that it is not available. This Act puts the Members of the House in a very special position to come together every five years to debate and decide on the extension. So, can I humbly request that the Ministry consider providing such information on a confidential basis, just to the Members of the House, for the purpose of the debate?

Number two, just one more clarification. I believe I did ask for the Minister of State to clarify, whether in the past five years, whether there have been instances where the Public Prosecutor withheld consent or raised concerns when the Ministry sought to make an order. Is the Minister of State able to address this question?

Like what I shared earlier, on why we are not able to share the details, I am not sure whether Member is aware, but the issue of gangs, secret societies, transnational crime is something that is very complex and deep. So, we need to be very careful about what we share. But I want to assure the Member that we have Singapore's interest at heart. So, it is something that I want to assure Members about.

And we have shared information. We have shared information with the public, as I shared during the SPS Annual Reports. So, that is one.

The other aspect is about whether the Public Prosecutor has had reservation or some differences of opinion. Like what I shared earlier, it is a process where we put up to the different Advisory Committee as well as the Prosecutor, and it is a process; upon which the Prosecutor may ask us for further details and clarification, which we have done so in the past.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his replies to my questions. I have a few further clarifications to make. In principle, PSP would like to support the Bill if our recommended safeguards are adopted.

Can I ask the Minister of State whether our safeguards are really out of the ordinary? Because, for example, when we asked for the condition, or the requirement, that a sitting judge be part of the Advisory Committee and this condition to be codified in the Act, this is something that the Government is currently already practicing, as what the Minister of State has said and what I have read about the Bill recently. It is already something being practised, so what is the problem of codifying it in the Act itself?

My second question is, putting in another requirement for this Bill that the President can act in his discretion is something that is also under the ISA, which carries the same draconian power to detain an individual without trial. So, since the ISA also has this condition, that the President can act in his discretion, why can this condition not be also put into this CLTPA Bill?

Those are the clarifications I am seeking.

Sir, I maintain my stand and the reply that I have given to Mr Leong. And I want to share with Mr Leong, when I say that the system has worked, actually the system has really worked. I work very closely with the inmates and some of them are also under the CLTPA. I could see that not only when they were detained but also the processes that they went through. Some of them, their family members wrote to me, and I met the family members and I assured the family members that they would have the reviews done annually. Some of them I met when they were released and the family members also shared with me, that some have transformed their lives. They shared that the whole process actually helped them.

While no one likes our loved ones to be detained, nevertheless, Singapore's safety and security is of utmost importance. Some of them even said that without this intervention, they would not be what they are today.

So, as I shared earlier in my reply, it has worked well. We would welcome any suggestions that you have given. We will look at them, but I think what is key is that we want to look not only after Singaporeans. We want to look after our country and we want to help those who are affected to get the right rehabilitation and reintegration journey. We want to help them. We do not want to just change for something that is very theoretical. If we do not have something that has worked well, I think it is fine. But based on my ground experience, my engagement inside the prison, even outside when they are released, I feel it has worked well, Sir.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I have two questions for the Minister of State. Firstly, if you look at the CLTPA, there is an annual review process. Is it true that these detainees, especially for the first detention, they are only released three to four years after the first detention? Whether this is true based on past practice?

Second question, if you look at the CLTPA, there are five big parts. One big chunk of Part 3 involves industrial actions by essential service workers. I just want to check in with the Minister of State whether MHA had reviewed this and see whether it is relevant in today's context, especially Part 1 of the Schedule.

Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. One is about the detention. As I shared earlier, there will be annual reviews, there is no minimum period. There will be opportunities for the Committees to assess these detainees based on the criminal activities in question, the detainees' antecedents, the detainees' conduct and response to the programmes.

We not only look from the outward response. We have a system where we really observe. For gang-related cases, some of the symptoms you cannot see physically, you need to sense, when you talk to them and when you see how they relate to the others, and you will have to monitor some of these things. So, it is very case specific, detainee specific. However, we feel that we will not detain anyone beyond what is not necessary.

With regard to your second question, as I replied to Mr Murali earlier, we will continue to review these provisions and propose changes, if necessary. These are things that we will continue to look at.

Are there any further clarifications for Minister of State Faishal? I do not see any.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.